ED 295 008

TITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT RESUME

CE 050 194

The Montgomery GI Bill. Hearings before theSubcommittee on Education, Training and Employment ofthe Committee on Veterans' Affairs. House ofRepresentatives, One Hundredth Congress, FirstSession (October 14-15, 1987).Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. HouseCommittee on Veterans' Affairs.Oct 87250p.; Serial No. 100-34.Superintendent of Documents, Congressional SalesOffice, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,DC 20402.Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090)

MF01/PC10 Plus Postage.Armed Forces; *Federal Legislation; Federal Programs;Hearings; Military Organizations; Military Personnel;Postsecondary Education; *Program Effectiveness;*Program Improvement; Training Allowances; Veterans;*Veterans EducationCongress 100th; *GI Bill

ABSTRACTThis document reports the testimony and written

statements given at a congressional hearing concerning the MontgomeryGI Bill and proposed changes to it. Testimony and prepared statementswere given by members of Congress and by representatives of thevarious branches of the Armed Services, active and retired servicepersonnel, and veterans' organizations. During the hearings, thosetestifying supported proposals for changes in the GI Bill that would,among other things, provide more money for flight training forpeacetime veterans, make educational benefits transferrable to aveteran's dependents, pay a deceased or disabled veteran's dependentsfor the benefits accrued under the bill, and allow recruits whoinitially refused to participate in the GI Bill plan to change theirmind later. Witnesses testified that these and other changes areneeded in order to recruit and retain capable young persons in theArmed Services and in order to make the Montgomery GI Bill provisionsfairer to all service members. (KC)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

CDC.)o

LC1C7C\I

L.t./

THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL

HEARINGSBEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 14 AND OCTOBER 15, 1987

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

Serial No. 100-34

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION0:fice Educational Research and Improvement

ED ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

CI Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality.

Pointsolview or opinionsstatedinthisdocuiment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy

U.S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

79-871 trc WASHINGTON : 1988

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, GMgressionai Sales OfficeU.S. Government Printing Mee, Washington, DC 20402

2BEST COPY AVAILABLE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

G.V. (SONNY) MONTGOMERY, Mississippi, ChairmanDON EDWARDS, CaliforniaDOUGLAS APPLEGATE, OhioDAN MICA, FloridaWAYNE DOWDY, MississippiLANE EVANS, IllinoisMARCY KAPTUR, OhioTIMOTHY J. PENNY, MinnesotaHARLEY 0. STAGGERS, JR., West VirginiaJ. ROY ROWLAND, GeorgiaJOHN BRYANT, TexasJAMES J. FLORIO, New JerseyKENNETH J. GRAY, IllinoisPAUL E. KANJORSKI, PennsylvaniaTOMMY F. it0BINSON, ArkansasCHARLES W. STENHOLM, TexasCLAUDE HARRIS, AlabamaJOSEPH P. KENNEDY, II, MassachusettsELIZABETH J. PATTERSON, South CarolinaTIM JOHNSON, South DakotaJIM JONTZ, Indiana

GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New YorkJOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, ArkansasCHALMERS P. WYLIE, OhioBOB STUMP, ArizonaBOB MCEWEN, OhioCHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New JerseyDAN BURTON, IndianaMICHAEL BILIRAK1S, FloridaTHOMAS J. RIDGE, PennsylvaniaJOHN G. ROWLAND, ConnecticutROBERT K. DORNAN, CalrorniaROBERT C. SMITH, New HampshireJACK DAVIS, Illinois

MACK FLEMING, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT

WAYNE DOWDY, Mississippi, ChairmanELIZABETH J. PATTERSON, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New JerseyJIM JONTZ, Indiana CHALMERS P. WYLIE, OhioLANE EVANS, Illinois THOMAS J. RIDGE, PennsylvaniaMARCY KAPTUR, Ohio ROBERT K. DORNAN, CaliforniaJOSEPH P. KENNEDY, II, Massachusetts

3

3i8AJI4VA Y903 1-838

1

t The Montgomery GI Bill

CONTENTS

October 14, 1987

Page1

OPENING STATEMENTS

Donlan, Hon. Robert K 6Dowdy, Hon. Wayne, chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Training and

Employment 2Jontz, Hon. Jim 3Montgomery, Hon. G. V. (Sonny), chairman, full committee on Veterans'

Affairs 1

WITNESSES

Bemis, Lt. Col. Al H., Program Manager for the Montgomery GI Bill, U.SArmy 21

Buesener, Capt. Charles A., director of legislation, Naval Reserve Association 34Prepared statement of Captain Buesener 138

Berkman, Maj. Gen. William R., military executive, Reserve Forces PolicyBoard. Office of the Secretary of Defense 44

Prepared statement of General Berkman 165Carmine, First Sgt. Cheryl L., New Haven Recruiting Company, U.S. Army 10Catlin, Col. Ben S., assistant executive director, Air Force Association 43

Prepared statement of Colonel Catlin 164Christiansen, Gayle, program manager for the Montgomery GI Bill, U.S

Coast Guard 22Couch, M. Sgt. Calvin L., Enlisted Recruiting Branch, U.S. Marine Corps 11DeGeorge, Frank R., associate legislative director, Paralyzed Veterans of

America 53Prepared statement of Mr. DeGeorge 192

Fink, Nelson L., legislative assistant, military and Government relations, AirForce Sergeants Association 33

Prepared statement of Mr. Fink 135Johnson, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of South

Dakota 7Prepared statement of Congressman Johnson 126

Johnson, M. CPO Homer A., Force Master Chief for Recruiting Command,U.S. Navy 10

Johnson, Richard W., director of legislative affairs, the Non CommissionedOfficers Association of the United States of America 37

Prepared statement of Mr. Johnson 146Korol, Judith, program manager for the Montgomery GI Bill, US. Navy 21Lombardo, CPO Joseph, U.S. Coast Guard 12Magill, James N., director, national legislative service, Veterans of Foreign

Wars of the United States 54Prepared statement of Mr. Magill 199

Mueller, Maj. Gary E., program manager for the Montgomery GI Bill, U.SMarine Corps 21

Nolan, Robert W., national executive secretary, Fleet Reserve Association,accompanied by Peter Ross, president 36

Prepared statement of Mr. Nolan 141Obermiller, Chief Alan, CMS (Ret.), executive director, Enlisted Association of

the National Guard of the United States 42

4

IV

PageObermiller, Chief Alan, CMS (Ret.), executive director, Enlisted Association of

the National Guard of the United States ContinuedPrepared statement of Chief Obermiller 156

Partridge, Col. Charles C., USA (Ret.), legislative counsel, National Associa-tion of Uniformed Services 38

Prepared statement of Colonel Partridge 150PassamaneCk, Lt. Col. David J., USA (Ret.), national legislative director,

AMVETS 51Prepared statement of Colonel Passamaneck 188

Rodenberg, Lt. Col. James V., USAF (Ret.), legislative counsel, Reserve Offi-cers Association of the United States 44

Prepared statement of Reserve Officers Association of the United States 168Smith, Col. Edward P., USA (Ret.), director of membership services, Associa-

tion of the United States Army 32Prepared statement of Colonel Smith 132

Wanamaker, Comdr. John F., deputy director of legislation, the Retired Offi-cers Association 45

Prepared statement of Commander Wanamaker 171Weber Lt. Gen. LaVern E., AUS (Ret.), executive director, National Guard

Association of the United States 42Prepared statement of General Weber 152

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Bills:H.R. 2950Tn arne,r-zi the Montgomery GI Bill with respect to flight

troirang 103MR. 3180To amend chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, with

respect to the Montgomery GI Bill, August 6, 1987 108H.R. 3208To amend chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, with

respect to the Montgomery GI Bill, August 7, 1987 114Draft bill:

H.R. 3464To amend title 38, United States Code, with respect to theMontgomery GI Bill, and for other purposes 122

Letters:Department of the Navy to new enlistees, re the Montgomery GI Bill 205Department of the Air Force to parents/guardians, re the Montgomery

GI Bill 208Statement:

John L. Baker, president, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 201Written committee questions and their response:

Chairman Dowdy to U.S. Army 213Chairman Dowdy to U.S. Air Force 214Chairman Dowdy to U.S. Coast Guard 215

October 15, 1987

PageThe Montgomery GI Bill 59

OPENING STATEMENTS

Dowdy, Hon. Wayne, chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Training .andEmployment 59

Montgomery, Hon. G. V. (Sonny), chairman, full Committee on Veterans'Affairs 60

WITNESSES

Edney, Rear Adm., Leon A. deputy chief of naval operations (manpower,personnel and training), U.S. Navy 80

Gill, Maj. Gen. Sloan R., USAF (Ret.), Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary ofDefense (Guard and Reserve) for Manpower and Personnel, U.S. Depart-ment of Defense 70

Prepared statement of General Gill 227Hickey, Lt. Gen., Thomas J. deputy chief of staff for personnel, U.S. Air Force 81

5

V

Lukeman, Lt. Gen., Anthony, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Man-power and Personnel Policy, U.S. Department of Defense

Prepared statement of General LukemanMatteson, Rear Adm., Thomas T. chief of personnel, U.S. Coast GuardMoore, Maj. Gen. Jacob W., deputy chief of staff for Reserve affairs, U.S

Marine CorpsOno, Lt. Allen K., deputy chief of staff for personnel, U.S ArmyReals, Brig. Gen., Gail M. director, manpower, glans and policy division, U.S

Marine CorpsScheer, Mtkj. Gen. Roger P., chief, Air Force Reserve, U.S. Air ForceSchlee, Michael, director for national security and foreign relations, the

American LegionPrepared statement of Mr. Schlee

Smith, Rear Adm. Neale, chief of Naval Reserve, U.S. NavyTemple, Lt. Gen. Herbert R., Jr., chief, National Guard BureauWard, William F., chief, Army Reserve, U.S. ArmyWelling, Rear Adm. Paul A., chief, office for readiness and Reserve, U.S

Coast GuardVogel, R. J., Chief Benefits Director, Veterans' Administration; accompanied

by: Dr. Dennis R. Wyant, director, vocational rehabilitation and educationservice; and James P. Kane, assistant general counsel

Prepared statement of Mr. Vogel

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Statement:National Air Transportation Association

Written committee questions and their response:Chairman Dowdy to Veterans' AdministrationChairman Dowdy to Office of the Assistant Secretary of DefenseChairman Dowdy to Army ReserveChairman Dowdy to Air Force ReserveChairman Dowdy to U.S. Coast GuardChairman Dowdy to National Guard Bureau

6

Page

68222

82

8979

8290

99233889288

91

61216

237

239240243244245246

THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL

Wednesday, October 14, 1987

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING

AND EMPLOYMENT,COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room

334 Cannon House Office Bu ;Ming, Hon. Wayne Dowdy (chairmanof the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Montgomery, Dowdy, Jontz, Evans, Kaptur, Kennedy,Smith of New Jersey, Ridge, and Dornan.

Also present: Representatives Johnson and Hunter.Mr. DOWDY. The Subcommittee on Education, Training and Em-

ployment will come to order.I want to welcome all of you to today's hearing. The ranking mi-

nority member of our subcommittee, our friend and colleague ChrisSmith from New Jersey, is presently tied up in the markup of avery important bill in the Foreign Relations Committee. He shouldbe here momentarily.

We also want to welcome the chairman of the full Committee onVeterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives, my friend andcolleague, for whom the GI bill is named, G. V. (Sonny) Montgom-ery.

Chairman Montgomery?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G. V. (SONNY) MONTGOMERY,CHAIRMAN, FULL COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Chairman Dowdy, for giving methis opportunity. I will be brief and thank you and Chris Smith forhaving this hearing on the GI education bill.

I want to say this, that the number of witnesses in the audiencetoday and who will testify really have been pushers and sponsors ofthe GI bill. Wayne, without this group we could not have made it.The number of witnesses that you will hear from today were partof a total team effort with people across the board helping, espe-cially those in the services that we will hear from that were on thefiring line doing the work and putting out the pamphlets and appli-cations.

So I feel real good about having these hearings. I guess my phi-losophy is to take a good, hard look and maybe go rather slow or goslow before we make any major changes. But let's hear it throughand, in certaiii cases with the GI bill, there should be somechanges.

(1)

t't,7

2

So I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing, andwe are real pleased that it seems that the GI bill is doing every-thing we thought it would do as far as the services are concerned.Thank you.

Mr. DOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE DOWDY, CHAIRMAN,SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT

This morning the subcommittee is meeting to review the imple-mentation and effectiveness of the Montgomery GI Bill establishedin 1984, initially under Public Law 98-525, and made permanentthis year as a result of the enactment of Public Law 100-48.

Many of you in this room, as Sonny Montgomery has said, wereinstrumental in the passage of both these measures, and we wantto thank you for your hard work. We will be focusing on threebillsH.R. 2950, H.R. 3180, and H.R. 3208. H.R. 2950, which wasintroduced on July 15, would authorize individuals with eligibilityunder the Montgomery GI Bill to pursue flight training. Mr. ChrisSmith of New Jersey, distinguished ranking minority member ofthe subcommittee, introduced H.R. 3180 on August 6, and H.R.3208 was introduced on August 7 by another outstanding memberof our subcommittee, my friend Jim Jontz of Indiana.

Both of these bills would amend chapter 30 of Title 38, UnitedStates Code. I will ask Mr. Smith, when he is present, and Mr.Jontz to explain their bills in more detail later.

In addition, our first witness this morning will be CongressmanTim Johnson, a member of the full Veterans' Affairs Committee,who is from South Dakota. Tim will be testifying on a bill that herecently introduced, H.R. 3464, and we will welcome any commentsour later witnesses may want to make regarding any of thesepieces of legislation.

Testifying later will be Congressman Duncan Hunter of Califor-nia, a member of the Committee on Armed Services, who has beena staunch supporter of the Montgomery GI Bill.

In the letter of invitation we requested comments on H.R. 2950,H.R. 3180, and H.R. 3208. We also invited witnesses to discuss addi-tional amendments, if any, which they think would improve the ef-fectiveness of the newest GI bill.

It is my personal view, based on visits I have made to servicetraining bases, that the Montgomery GI Bill is working and it'sworking very, very well. I also feel that we should think long andhard before we make any significant changes in this program.

Nevertheless, this is a good opportunity to begin discussions andreviewing the proposals before us. We will be hearing from manywitnesses today, with another hearing scheduled for tomorrowmorning at 9:30. Accordingly, we will firmly abide by the 5-minuterule. Written questions may be submittd to our witnesses follow-ing the hearings, and without objection, the questions and writtenresponses will be included in the hearing record.

Also, the record will remain open for 10 days for additional state-ments and comments.

I will call now on a member of the subcommittee who has intro-duced the legislation to which we referred earlier, Jim Jontz.

8

3

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM JONTZ

Mr. JoN'rz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.I would like to thank you for scheduling these 2 days of hearings

to discuss the Montgomery GI Bill. I might say 1. cbre proceedingfurther that I am very proud to be a member of this subcommittee,which has done so much on behalf of our Nation's veterans. It is areal pleasure for me to have a chance to make a statement thismorning about legislation that I have introduced, H.R. 3208, whichaddresses this very important subject.

The Montgomery GI Bill makes permanent a proven, winningprogram. Few Government programs can point to the successwhich characterizes the Montgomery GI Bill. I certainly agree withyou, Mr. Chairman, that care must be taken before rushing intoany changes affecting this legislation. The approach which thiscommittee will take of spending time during this session to evalu-ate the program and then perhaps entertaining changes in the pro-. gram in the coming years seems to me a very prudent course ofaction.

One of the first things I had the opportunity to do as a memberof the Veterans' Committee as a new Member of Congress was tovisit a number of military bases earlier this year as a part of a tripwhich this committee took. I had the chance at that time to learn agreat deal about the GI bill, to hear directly from recruits abouttheir impressions about the program, and also to hear directlyfrom those involved in the military as recruiters and other officersin charge -,f training, about their impressions about the strengthsand weaknesses of this program.

The bill that I have sponsored, H.R. 3208, comes as a result ofwhat I heard on that trip as well as a number of other discussions Ihave had with veterans in my district, with recruiters, with otherMembers of Congress, and with representatives of veterans groups,all of whom have given a great deal of thought to the program.

H.R. 3208 makes the benefits offered under the Montgomery GIBill even more attractive to recruits and to their families. I appre-ciate the opportunity to briefly discuss the provisions of the legisla-tion with you and other members of our subcommittee and thechairman of our full committee this morning.

There are essentially five provisions, five improvements if youwill, that are included in H.R. 3208. First, with regard to themethod of contribution, under H.R. 3208 a new member of thearmed services would be given the choice to decide if their finan-cial contribution would be in the form of $100 over 12 months, as isnow the requirement, or $60 for 20 months. Many recruits haveidentified the amount of the monthly contribution as the key im-pediment to participation. I think we heard this more than any-thing else when we were talking to recruits earlier this year. Itwas suggested by them that if the contribution could be madesmaller and spread out over a longer period of time, more recruitswould be able to participate.

H.R. 3208 provides the option of making the payment of $60 over20 months, as compared to $50 over 24 months, because some mem-bers are discharged from the service at the 20-month point for theconvenience of the service. I am not sure that the $10 difference

9

4

between $50 and $60 particularly argues for one alternative or theother. But I do think that providing the option to the recruit tochoose to make the payment for $60 is a significant alternative to$100, and for those who would choose to spread out their paymentsover a longer period of time it would provide them that option.

I know that when we hear testimony from some of our witnesses,some will be suggesting the repeal of contribution from the service-member. There is considerable merit to the idea. But I think thatwithin the realm of the possible, what we can have the greatestlikelihood of accomplishing is getting the contribution spread outover a greater period of time if that is what the servicememberchooses to do. I think this would make it much more attractive tothose individuals who have serious family obligations or other fi-nancial obligations which in some cases prevent them from payingthe $100 for the 12-month period.

The second provision in H.R. 3208 pertains to the enrollmentperiod. Under H.R. 3208 each branch of the service is given the dis-cretion to set a period of time not to exceed a period of 60 daysafter the new recruit becomes an active member, during which therecruit can make the election not to participate.

This revision would spell out in the law the enrollment period alittle more precisely than the current language of the law whichstates that the decision not to participate must be made at the timethat the member assumes active duty.

I have received a number of letters from relatives of recruits whohave told me e at the initial confusion associated with basic train-ing resulted in their recruit opting not to participate. I think thatH.R. 3208 would allow the services the discretion about choosingthe period of time when they want to pop the question, so to speak,to the recruit to best meet the basic-training situation that theyhave.

The impression that I got from visiting each of the four basictraining camps is that there are some differences among each ofthe basic training programs, and that the individual branches hadsome difference of opinion as to when the best time was to give theoption to the recruit. The point of the language it H.R. 3208 is togive each branch of the service a choice about what they thinkmakes best sense for their particular program. I think if we didthat, then they could increase enrollment by using their judgmentand their experience to offer that choice at the proper time.

The third provision in H.R. 3208 pertains to a temporary periodof enrollment. It would provide that any active-duty member whohas not elected to participate in the program and who was eligibleto participate would be given on a one-time basis 60 days in whichto opt to participate, of course with the understanding that the fullfinancial contribution be made. Many times during our trip weheard recruits say that if only they had the opportunity to changetheir mind, they would choose to participate in the Montgomery GIBill.

I am sure that is the case, and I am sure that given what thearmed services have learned over the lar' couple of years in mar-keting the program, that had they known then what they knownow, there would have been a lot of men and women in the service

10

5

who would have been convinced to stay in the program and wouldnow be eligible.

I know that there are some additional recommendations that aregoing to be coming forward in testimony about expanding eligibil-ity for other members of the service, and I think those recommen-dations have a great deal of merit. But I would hope we would lookat the issue in terms of thinking of who should we, for the sake offairness, be extending the opportunity to Participate in the pro-gram to. I would suggest that those who initially declined butwould now give it a second glance because of their changed circum-stances, should be given that option.

The fourth provision in H.R. 3208, and probably the most contro-versial in this bill, is the provision with regard to transfer of enti-tlement to dependents. H.R. 3208 enables a member under authori-zation by the Secretary of Defense to transfer to one or more of hisdependents which are defined as being spouse, surviving spouse,or childrenany or all of his educational entitlement, with addi-tions/ provisions that allow revocation or modification of that deci-sion. In addition, the provision that says that a transfer can bemade while the individual is on active duty, upon death, dischargefor hardship or service-connected disability, or completion of 20years of active duty.

H.R. 3208 gives the member the important advantage of beingable to transfer their educational entitlement to a member of theirfamily under the circumstances that the Secretary of Defense mayprescribe.

I realize there are some very fundamental questions about the GIbill program that have to be addressed in looking at the possibilityof transferability of benefits. However, based on what I heard onour trip and have heard from others, the option of transferabilitywould make the program more attractive. I think that we shouldexamine this issue and would suggest that the particular languagein H.R. 3208 is only a first step.

The fifth and final provision in H.R. 3208 pertains to compensa-tion in lieu of benefits. H.R. 3208 provides that a compensationpayment equal to the amount by which a member's salary was re-duced will be made or can be made under two particular circum-stances: one, where the physical or mental disability of the memberof the service prevents them from taking advantage of the benefitsunder the program; and two, in the event of a member's deathwhere a compensation payment can be made to the member's de-pendents.

Many have expressed the opinion that under the current pro-gram a member is unfairly penalized if they are unable through nofault of their own to use their education benefits. The case of dis-ability or death are two very clear cases, I think, that deserve ourattention, and H.R. 3208 would address each of these.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I am aware that in thetestimony that we will hear in the next couple of days there are agreat many very thoughtful suggestions from veterans groups, fromthe military, and the military associations. And I am very muchcognizant of the fact that this is a complex subject. What I haveput forward in H.R. 3208 is very much a first draft of my thinkingon some of the improvements that could be made in the Montgom-

11

6

ery GI Bill. I am looking forward to hearing the t,:timony and, Ithink many of the suggestions that we will be hearing have a greatdeal of merit and I am interested in examining each of them.

My thanks again to you, Mr. Chairman, for holding these hear-ings, and to the chairman of our full committee for his counsel inpreparing this legislation and for his advice to me in terms of srg-gestions about how to approach the subject. I appreciate very muchthe chance to make this statement before our subcommittee thismorning.

Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Jontz.Next we will recognize a member of our subcommittee, a valued

member from the State of C-lifornia, who has been very instru-mental in this legislation. and 1 have had some comments re-garding the provisions of H.R. 2950. Bob Dornan.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT K. DORNAN

Mr. Dommi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I wantee t speak to your excellent bill because I have personal

experience with the old CI bill in flight training. Today is an inter-esting day to discuss anything that has to do with flight becauseonly 40 years ago today a now-famous American, then an obscure24-year-old Air Force captain with 13 combat victories over Europe,Chuck Yeager, grandson of the great State cf We3t Virginia, brokethe sound barrier. It was 40 years ago today.

When I broke the sound barrier in 1956, just 9 years later, therewere several thousand young men in the Navy, Marine Corps, andAir Force doing it every day in routine. I flew in the Air Force for3 years. I can't think of a better job in peacetime than flying jetfighters in any one of our military services.

But I gave it up to opt for politics and the private s Jr and leftthe military with five kids. Then I found myself driving a YellowCab, sitting in the line at L.A. International Airport, wondering ifthe private sector was all it was cracked up to be.

I had all these pilot skills, even a jet rating, commercial rating.But I needed the GI bill to get a helicopter rating. And then it cost$75 an hour. Now it's three or four times that. When I learned tofly at 16, it was $5 an hour and $3 for the instructor. I soloed in1950 at a total cost. of $76. Well, that was one hour of helicoptertime when I was out of the military, and now it's just a fraction ofthat.

So your bill is eminently fair the way it is written. It is very ex-pensive to even pay a quarter of this training. It is structured sothat it isn't something frivolous. It's something that people will beve professional and career-minded about.

When I got that helicopter rating, it opened up the opportunityto fly with police departments and to fly as a traffic watch reporterin helicopters. Helicopters were just coming onboard then in ourmajor markets, and it is a tremendous career field opportunity thatopens up to our young n, n and women who maybe serviced heli-copters in the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Army for yearsand always wanted to fly. And having given some of those bestyears of their life to come out and haw. this opportunity added tothe GI bill through your bill I think is eminently fair, and I think

'1IMMMMINIIIV."

12

7

it's something that I hope every member will endorse unanimously.You worked out the arithmetic beautifully, and it's just somethingthat I know veterans would be most grateful to you and to seniorcommittee chairman, Mr. Montgomery, for adding to this superbGI bill.

Just a fmal thought on the GI bill. I don't know a committee inthis House that affects people's lives more positively than this com-mittee with this excellent type of legislation. It takes those youngmen and women who give years out of their lives to make theworld secure, for the part of the world that's free, secure for all therest of us. I was just very proud to particiDate in this, am. this islandmark legislation to help these good kids across this countrythat wear the uniform of our great Nation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Dornan, we are aware of your requirement that

you leave us later for the Foreign Relations Committee markup.But we certainly do appreciate your interest and support for H.R.2950.

Our colleague, Mr. Evans, a member of this subcommittee andalso the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investiga-tions.

Mr. Evans?Mr. EVANS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will forego an

opening statement, in the inter est of time.Mr. DOWDY. All right.Our colleague from Massachusetts, our friend Joe Kennedy.Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, as someone who went along on a

trip with Chairman Montgomery and Mr. Jontz, I just am delight-ed to see that Mr. Jontz is taking the initiative to come up withsome of the provisions that will deal with some of the problemsthat we found in the implementation of the Montgomery bill. I justlook forward to hearing the testimony from Mr. Johnson and Mr.Hunter.

Mr. DOWDY. All right. Thank you very much.Our first witness this morning is our colleague, Congressman

Tim Johnson from South Dakota. As we have stated, Mr. Johnsonis a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and is a veryvalued member of that committee.

Tim, it's a pleasure for us to have you be with us today, and wewould like for you to begin.

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE INCONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you todayto discuss amendments to the Montgomery GI Bill. I want to com-mend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.

The Montgomery GI Bill as signed into law this year, and ourchairman of the full committee obviously is to be congratulated forhis unceasing work in support of the men and women who makeup our armed services. The Montgomery GI Bill is one of the bestinvestments in the future the Federal Government has ever made.I am immensely proud as a new member of this committee, a new

13

8

Member of Congress, to have the opportunity to serve on the fullCommittee on Veterans' Affairs at the time of the passage of theMontgomery GI Bill. Countless veterans have used the GI bill toget their education, and we are here to make sure all military per-sonnel in the future receive the same fair treatment and benefits.

I have sponsored a bill, H.R. 3464, which would address two spe-cific areas. The first has been suggested by the people the programis intended to benefit, the military personnel. It is also being ad-dressed by other members of this committee. The provision wouldallow servicemen and women to have smaller amounts deductedfrom their pay for a longer period of time. As you can understand,Mr. Chairman, this would ease the burden on the individual with-out reducing the overall amount paid into the educational fund andmake the GI bill even a greater benefit to our service men andwomen.

The second area addressed is that of education benefits of mem-bers of the Selected Reserve Forces. My bill would allow anymember of the Selected Reserve to use the GI bill the same wayveterans under Title 38 can. Currently, members of the Reservecannot use the Montgomery GI Bill to attend vocational or techni-cal school. Many of these recruits join the Reserves specifically totake advantage of the excellent technical education they receive.They are unfortunately prohibited from using the Montgomery GIBill to continue that technical training at vocational schools. Thisadjustment would simply put them on equal footing with other vet-erans and military personnel, ensuring consistency in administra-tion of the education program and fairness in treatment of all mili-tary personnel.

Since most of these Reserve Forces would opt for vocationaltraining instead of college and since they are part-time personnel,the amount of an individual's entitlement would be reduced.

The same section was adopted last year as an amendment toH.R. 3747 by Mr. Desch le, the former chairman of this subcommit-tee. That bill was marked up out of the subcommittee and subse-quently by the full committee.

I would respectfully request, Mr. Chairman, that you give thesame consideration to these members of the Selected Reserve as isgiven to other patriotic servicemen and women.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunityto appear before you and the subcommittee. I congratulate youagain for holding this hearing on these needed amendments, and Ihope we can act soon to put all military personnel on an equal foot-ing regarding educational benefits. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Congressman Johnson appears on p.126.]

Mr. DOWDY. Tim, thank you very much for your testimony thismorning. I want to make a commitment to you that in the comingweeks, as we begin to work with the proposals that have been ad-vanced by you and the other members, you and I will sit down anddiscuss them at great length.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Wayne. I will be brief, but I wouldlike to comment on the Jim Jontz bill, H.R. 3208, and also the TimJohnson bill, H.R. 3464.

9

On Jim Jontz's bill, I would like to point out a comment that hemade that he went out in the field and Joe Kennedy was also onthat trip. I think this is one piece of legislation that a great majori-ty of the members understand and like to work on it. A lot of timeswe find legislation up here that members don't get involved. Anumber of Members of Congress, as Bob Dornan said, were educat-ed under the GI bill, so also they understand it. You have takenfield trip, and you've gone out and you've seen it in action. We'veseen it implomented for the young men and women in the service.

So that's the strong point, Mr. Chairman, that Members of Con-gress have a definite interest in the GI bill and the main interest isimproving it so that it will help all Americans. I am glad you point-, ed that out, Jim.

Just one other area, on the transferability to a member of thefamily or to the spouse if they earn these education benefits afterstaying a certain length of time in the service. That was in the billyears ago when we first started on this track of coming up withpeacetime GI educational benefits. I think, Mr. Chairman, we needto know what the costs would be for transferability and take agood, hard look at it and consider it at a later date. It certainly hasmerit to it.

To Tim Johnson, on his legislation, quite frankly, I don't knowhow the technical and vocational schooling was left out. It was amajor piece of legislation. It was passed in a conference betweenthe Senate and the House. It was the last major legislative stum-bling block before we could come up with a conference agreement.It was jointly referred to the Armed Service, Committee, and at 2o'clock in the morning we had some problems. And I see some ofthe people grinning out in the audience; they were right therewatching it.

I am really surprised that a lot more areas were not left out be-cause it is such major legislation, and that's why we need hearingson it. I think that othersI know General Weber of the NationalGuard will testify regarding the fact to why that a reservistscannot use his or her GI bill benefits to get a master's degree andPh.D. degrees but you can get it under the peacetime GI bill for theActive Forces.

So you make a good point, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, we canfollow up on those areas. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Jontz?Mr. Jo m. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Evans9Mr. EVANS. No questrins, Mr. Chairman.Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Kennedy, any questions or comments to our col-

league?Mr. KENNEDY. None, Mr. Chairman.Mr. DOWDY. Tom Ridge, I'm sorry I didn't see you come in. Any

questions or comments?Mr. RIDGE. No questions, Mr. Chairman.Mr. DOWDY. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson, for

your testimony this morning.Next we will hear from a panel of recruiters, one from each

branch of service. It is our view that recruiters play a very impor-

10

tant role in the success we have experienced with the MontgomeryGI Bill. I think it would be helpful for us to hear from these indi-viduals.

If you would stand as I call your name and then come to the wit-ness table as you are introduced, please.

The recruiters joining us today are: 1st Sgt. Cheryl Carmine, U.S.Army; M. CPO. Homer Johnson, representing the U.S. Navy, andwhose mother happens to be a very dear friend of mine; T. Sgt.Milton Graham, U.S. Air Force; M. Sgt. Calvin Couch, representingthe U.S. Marine Corps; and CPO Joseph Lombardo, from the U.S.Coast Guard.

Since you were not requested to submit for the record writtentestimony, I would appreciate it if each of you would identify your-selvesplease be seated firstand then briefly describe your cur-rent duties, with special emphasis on what impact the MontgomeryGI Bill has had on your work, and any comments you wish tomake, speaking individually, regarding the program.

STATEMENT OF 1ST SGT. CHERYL L. CARMINE, NEW HAVENRECRUITING COMPANY, U.S. ARMY

Sergeant CARMINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure forme to be here today.

I will have to speak of my previous job, since I have only been inmy present position for 60 days, first sergeant of a recruiting com-pany. Prior to that, I was a station commander in Bridgeport, CT,where I had a four-man recruiting station. In fiscal year 1986 myrecruiters were able to sell, with the GI bill and the Army CollegeFund, over $465,000 in education benefits to members of theBridgeport, CT, area.

The GI bill has been very instrumental in my success and that ofmy recruiters. I use the GI bill every day when I talk to a youngman or a young lady and tell them how it will help them. It afford-ed me the opportunity to acquire the highest incentive there is inArmy recruiting, the recruiter ring. I attribute my success to theGI bill and the Army's educational programs that are available toyoung men and women today.

STATEMENT OF M. CPO HOMER A. JOHNSON, FORCE MASTERCHIEF FOR RECRUITING COMMAND, U.S. NAVY

Master Chief JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I am Master Chief John-son, and I am the Force Master Chief of the Navy Recruiting Com-mand, headquartered in Washington, D.C. I have 12 years' experi-ence in the recruiting business, and I have gone from field recruit-er all the way up to senior enlisted j,. is in recruiting.

Mr. DOWDY. I need you to get just a little bit closer to the micro-phone.

Master Chief JOHNSON. I spend about 75 percent of my time inthe field visiting recruiters, talking with them about the thingsthat help them do their jobs better. The Montgomery GI Bill isalways one of the things that the Navy recruiter feels is very im-portant in their ability to sell the Navy and its' benefits.

Concerning the proposed changes to the Montgomery GI Bill, theone that I think is the most important to the Navy recruiter is the

,,,, 16

11

reduced pay reduction over a long period of time. I think that theyoung married man or woman coming into the service supporting afamily is not able to sacrifice that $100 a month up front. If theyhad an option to take less of a reduction, then that would certainlybenefit their contributions to the Montgomery GI Bill.

Mr. DOWDY. Sergeant?

STATEMENT OF T. SGT. MILTON GRAHAM, 3535TH RECRUITINGSQUADRON, U.S. AIR FORCE

Sergeant GRAHAM. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman,members of the committee, for allowing me this opportunity tospeak on behalf of the Montgomery GI Bill. I am an Alexandria,Virginia recruiter. I am a nonprior service recruiter. I recruitactive-duty, and I have been recruiting for 2 years now.

The Montgomery GI Bill is, I believe, one of the most importantreasons why an applicant comes into the Air Force, if I had to spe-cifically state one particular reason. The impact of the GI bill onmy success as a recruiter in getting the type of people that we'relooking for in the Air Force has been outstanding.

One of the proposed changes, as the chief petty officer said, wasthat the monthly contribution be reduced. That is also one of mybeliefs. The current salary of a person entering the Air Force ingrade E-1 is about $608 per month. Bear in mind, you take out$100 out of that, that leaves $500 a month for them to live off, di-vided by twothey get paid twice a month in the Air Forcethat's$250 a payday you're talking about.

I have a 90 percent sell rate of the GI bill. Nine out of ten peoplethat I enlist into the Air Force select the GI bill because I place alot of emphasis on the Montgomery GI Bill. I believe if we reducethe amount and extend it over a greater period, I can achieve andthe Air Force can achieve even a greater success rate. The AirForce's current success rate is 68 percent last month, and I believeI can get up to 100 percent if we reduced the amount. I thank youvery much.

Mr. DOWDY. Thank you.Sergeant Couch?

STATEMENT OF M. SGT. CALVIN L. COUCH, ENLISTEDRECRUITING BRANCH, U.S. MARINE CORPS

Sergeant COUCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is MasterSergeant Couch. I am with the Marine Corps, and I am a careerrecruiter. I have been on recruiting duty since 1974. I have had theopportunity of talking to numerous young men and women, and Ihad two tours up in Hartford, CT, as what we call a canvasser re-cruiter. My job now is working at the Navy Annex as instructoranalyst, career recruiter, and I go out and inspect a lot of stations.About 75 percent of my time is spent talking to the bag-carryingrecruiter, we call them, the canvassing recruiter, at the local re-cruiting station.

Now, as far as the Marine Corps and the Montgomery GI Bill,sir, we do not per se sell the GI bill. We utilize it as a benefit forthe individual once he joins the Marine Corps. We try to sell theMarine Corps first. If he is qualified, or her if she's qualified, for a

17

12

particular program, then we will enlist them in that particular pro-gram.

The GI bill, we utilize it as a benefit to them, their right. We tryto move it, tell them what's there for them, and we leave it up tothem. We have numerous collateral materials that we utilize at thestations as far as our advertising. We have numerous collateralmaterial that we give them at local recruiting stations, and also weteach the recruiters from day one right out of recruiter school per-taining to the GI bill.

So as far as the benefits of the GI bill, yes, we utilize it. And asfar as selling it initially, no, we try to get them to enlist in theMarine Corps first and then we tell them about the GI bill. Thankyou.

Mr. DOWDY. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF CPO JOSEPH LOMBARDO, U.S. COAST GUARD

Chief LOMBARDO. Mr. Chairman, I am Chief Petty Officer Lom-bardo, and I am in charge of the recruiting office in Portsmouth,NH.

We use the GI bill as part of our overall package when somebodycomes in to discuss an enlistment in the Coast Guard. We fmd thatpeople coming to us have usually talked to other recruiters,checked out the benefits in the other services, and look at theCoast Guard as one of their alternatives. We begin primarily byselling the missions of the Coast Guard, and then discuss benefitsfrom there. The recruiters feel fairly comfortable in their knowl-edge of the bill so that they can explain it as part of the package.

We fmd most people coming in already know about it, and theyare looking to us as one of the alternatives. It is an important partof our benefit packages, because if we didn't have this bill, it wouldbe very, very difficult for us to compete with the other services andbring in the type of people that we need.

Mr. DOWDY. I thank all of you. I have only one question or com-ment. We have had an opportunity several weeks to go again tosome basic training sites, the Marine installation in San Diego, theNavy installation in San Diego, and we have beer. to Army and AirForce training bases, as well.

It is my opinion that the young man or woman, when they get tobasic training wherever they are assigned, are nervous about basictraining and don't know what to expect. Accordingly, this is a badtime and a bad place for that young man or woman to have tomake a decision of this type.

I would hope that the recruiters with whom they have been deal-ing back in their hometown have had an opportunity back in morecomfortable circumstances, when they're less nervous and so forth,to sit down and talk at great length about the Montgomery GI Billwith these young men and women who will be later going on tobasic training.

I would hope that our procedures are such that the young personand, if he or she is married, their spouse, and their parents havebeen thoroughly briefed on the Montgomery GI Bill. And I wouldhope that, without exception, they would kr -w what decision they

18

13

will make regarding the GI bill before they leave to go to basictraining.

Now, do you think that that's possible, that we have notified andinformed the future recruit that well about the Montgomery GIBill? And what types of materials are being provided by the serv-ices to the recruiters in the field so that they can discuss this atgreat length and deal effectively with the GI bill with the recruitbefore he or she goes to basic training? I would ask you to respondto that.

Sergeant CARMINE. Yes, sir. First Sergeant Carmine. In theArmy, we have money to produce Recruiting Publicity items(RPI's), and I have a few of them with me today. The young re-cruiter carries an Army recruiting pocketbook here with him at alltimes, in which the GI bill and the Army college fund are ex-plained in detail. It shows the young man or woman what theyhave to do, how they enroll, what is expected of them and whatthey get out of it.

We also have another pamphlet that has the GI bill here. TheRecruiting Commandhas put together a sales book for the youngrecruiter coming straight out of school. Within the sales book, itshows him how to explain in detail the GI bill.

We also have the JOIN system, (joint optical information net-work). It's a laser disc video computer that the young recruiter isable to use to sell the Army. The GI bill is expressed and coveredin detail in that system.

We in the Army use the GI bill as a major selling attraction. Ithas assisted us in getting the quality soldier that we have today. Ipersonally feel that the Army is stronger, more motivated, anddefinitely more educated due to the GI bill and our selling of it.

Master Chief JOHNSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Master Chief ohn-son. We do not sell the Navy or the GI bill up front by itself. We dobusiness kind of like the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard, inthat we sell the Navy and its' benefits. We train our recruiters tofind an individual's dominant buying motive, and that is reallywhat we sell the individual, the things that they are looking forfrom the Navy.

Now, we have followed up on some things, which were a littlesloppy in the beginning, in getting our recruiters onboard with theGI bill, how to sell it and how to use it to help them better preparethe individual to make the decision at recruit training on whetherto participate or not.

Let me mention some of the things we've started in the last year.Our commanding officers of every recruiting district send a person-

, al letter to the individual at home after they join the Navy, ex-plaining the GI bill in full detail. They encourage the new recruitto show it to their family, their mom and dad, their school counsel-ors, and to get their advice on the benefits and whether theyshould participate. We also just recently sent out a policy-gram re-

. quiring every recruiter to explain in detail the individual benefitsof the GI bill and have the recruit sign a statement. This statementbecomes a part of their residual record, stating that they under-stand those benefits. We feel that by doing this, they will be betterprepared once they arrive at the RTC to make an informed deci-sion.

14

[The material referred to appears on p. 205.]Mr. DOWDY. Sergeant?Sergeant GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaking for

myself on behalf of the Air Force, I entered recruiting school at avery good time. I graduated from recruiting school in July of1985at that time we were going right into the present programthat we now have with the Montgomery GI Bill. So I was taughtthe new way to sell the GI bill.

I have used the GI bill basically to talk to everyone. We haveseveral letters that we send out to parents and guardians of the ap-plicants 2 weeks before they go to active duty, a letter issued fromthe commander of recruiting service.

Simply stated, 2 weeks prior to going to active duty we send aletter to the parents and the guardians, making sure that the ap-plicant knows what the GI bill is and the benefits that they canuse from it, which I feel are very important.

Secondly, we have a question-and-answer sheet that we give outthat contains 15 questions and answers about the GI bill.

[The material referred to appears on p. 208.]Most of the people that I talk to I believe are very, very well

briefed on the Montgomery GI Bill, and without the GI bill wewould not be as successful as we are.

Mr. DOWDY. Thank you.Sergeant?Sergeant Coml. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.We went at it a little bit differently. We started out with a

poster, and it publicizes the New GI Bill. Also, along with theposter we came out with a handout as far as the GI bill and theMarines red stripe. Then all educational pamphlets at age 19, andalso the Reserve pamphlet we came out with the GI bill in place.Each one of the recruiters have what we call a product-knowledgebook at their local station. Each recruiter has one. We also givethem a page with the New GI Bill and all the benefits that areavailable for them so that they can notify any individual that theytalk to about the GI bill, about the educational benefits and soforth. Thank you.

Chief LOMBARDO. Mr. Chairman, as I noted earlier, we first begina discussion with the roles and mission of the Coast Guard. Thenwe provide the specifics on the benefits available to them, and wego into detail about the GI bill and how it an affect them aftertheir time in the Coast Guard and what a benefit it is overall.

We use literature like the Air Force uses, and we also have infor-mation we receive from the Veterans' Administration which weuse to outline more of the program. Some of our offices have VAoffices close by, so if there is a problem they can't handle or a ques-tion they can't handle, then they bring it right to the VA. Thequestion is usually taken care of.

The problem we find is that we can explain the program to aperson when they're in our office, which is a very comfortable envi-ronment for the person. They can understand what we're saying.The same is true for parents. The parents can understand whatwe're saying because they're in their own environment, usually inthe home.

20

. t

15

What we're finding is when a person gets down to recruit train-ing, they have to make a decision about this bill in those first 2weeks, and that's very difficult for them to do because they'reunder an awful lot of pressure at that time.

What we have told them at the recruiting office in a comfortablesituation is usually forgotten. They find it very difficult to goahead and remember everything we explained to them about theGI bill and then try to make a decision right then as to whether ornot they should use it.

Many times we have applicants that will come in with theirwives or women that will come with their husbands, and they mayunderstand all of the provisions of the GI bill there, but when theyget down to recruit training they have to make this decision, andsometimes they will opt not to go ahead and select the bill becauseof the amount of money that is taken out of their check for it. Thatis really a decision that should be made between both people, boththe husband and wife, because it's a decision that will impact ontheir future.

So no matter how much we explain the bill in the beginning, westill have to do something about the other end of it because whenthey're under that pressure situation, they really need to havesome time to really make the right decision.

Mr. Downy. All right. Thank you very much, Chief.Thank you all of you.Without objection, I would like the different pieces of materials

that each of you have brought. I would like that material for thepermanent committee files. Afterwards, would you please give thatto the reporter?

[Retained in committee files.]Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman.Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Let me point out that the distinguished noncommissioned officers

here today are the key to the success of the GI bill, that the re-cruiter is the one that really sells the program. If he or she doesn'tknow the program fully and doesn't bring it up to that potentialrecruit, then the program doesn't work. We have found, in goingaround, that in some of the reports we made by going out andgoing to recruiting stations before we go to the basic camps wherethey have to sign up or not sign up, we found that in some casesthat the recruiter did not pass on to the family, to that potentialrecruit that the GI education benefits wore available.

Are you having that problem now? Do most of your recruiterscoming under you, do they have to bring up the GI bill? We willjust go down the line and you can give me an answer on that ques-tion.

Sergeant CARMINE. Well, sir, as addressed earlier, most youngmen and women today are college - bound for one reason or another.I would say an average of 85 percent of them want to go to college.And at that time, if that individual expresses that need as the ser-geant over here addressed, that it was his dominant buying motive,we go into great detail and we sit there and describe the GI bill indetail to him, what it can do for him, and how they utilize it.

I agree with the chief down here. I think that the problem thatwe're actually having is that when that young individual gets to

21

16

the reception station, because of the culture shock, the psychologi-cal things is going through, he is not thinking about any GI billat that time. You know, he's just thinking about, where am I, whydid I do this. I think that we need to make the GI bill, if that is thedominant buying motive to join a branch of the service, I personal-ly feel that right then that should become part of his enlistmentpacket. When he gets to the reception station he has already madethat major decision in his life and he doesn't have to worry aboutit. It's been described to him, it's been explained to him, we've toldhim what it means to him, and if he says yes, I want the GI bill,then let's go ahead right then, take two pieces of paper, fill it out,and ensure the young man or young woman is enrolled in the GIbill.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, thank you.Before recognizing the chief, let me say the way the legislation

was drawn up, the way Congress drew it up, they wanted theseyoung Americans to have the opportunity to get an education. It'sthe law now that the individual has to sign out from under the GIbill, he doesn't have to sign up for it. I certainly appreciate yourselling the services first. I can understand that.

But the Congress wants to stress that they think for the survivalof this Nation, that these young men and women have got to get aneducation somewhere down the line, and we're just telling them todo it, and if you don't want to do it and you have some certain rea-sons that you don't want to do it, then you have to sign out fromunder the program and we understand it.

But I want to stress that the Congress drew up the legislationwhere they want you to get an education and earn these funds, andif you don't, then you have to sign out. But if you don't sign outfrom under it, you're included in the program.

Chief Johnson.Master Chief JOHNSON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. It is Navy Re-

cruiting Command's policy that all recruiters discuss the GI billwith every applicant whether they join or not. And upon process-ing in, again there is a policy in effect that requires every recruiterto go over certain aspects of the Montgomery GI Bill explaining itthoroughly. Upon completion of that process, the individual appli-cant and the recruiter must sign that statement, and it becomes apermanent part of their record.

Again, that makes the headquarters more confident that the re-cruiter in fact is giving the information to the applicant. I guessthere is no way, other than doing something like that, to ever beassured that it takes place in every case. But we feel pretty confi-dent that this will fix any problem.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Sergeant Graham.Sergeant GRAHAM. Yes, Mr. Montgomery. I explained to you

some of the literature that the Air Force hands out and sends outto applicants that join the Air Force. We currently also have avideo disk, a laser disk, which I believe is an important tool, thatwe use that explains the GI bill, which they can actually look at,and if they see it rather than just read about itbecause appli-cants have a tendency just to look at a piece of paper and place itto the side, but if they get to actually look and the GI bill is ex-plained, it creates a firm impression in their mind.

22

But, just like the sergeant was saying, once they are in basictraining, they can forget a lot of these things because of thetrauma of basic training. The Air Force would like to extend it outto 30 days so that they can make the decision at a more prudenttime, at a time where they are well along in basic training andthey're back to a regular life style, so to speak. They can make amore firm decision at that particular time. So we would like to seeit changed from 14 days basically to 30 days.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. All right. Thank you.Sergeant Corral. Mr. Montgomery, would you mind repeating

your question, sir? I am sitting here thinking, and I was under theimpression that your question was as far as the training that therecruiters get or receive and as far as the information is passed onto the parents. Was that your question, sir?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, my question was this: We went out inthe field and found in talking to some recruits, as SergeantGraham said, they may have taken the paper and put it on theside, but they said their recruiter did not tell them about the GIbill before they came to basic camp.

Sergeant Correll. Well, as far as the Marine Corps is concerned,we start teaching our recruiters at recruiter school, but we alsohave quarterly training hours that we teach them once a quarterand we go over this type of training on what benefits or any newbenefits or updates on the benefits. And we ask our recruiters toexpress that to the new recruits or the prospects that they talk toon a daily basis. Also, along with the package that's to be filled out,they should go over the GI bill in full detail. That's why we havethe product knowledge book. We require them to go through theproduct knowledge book when they're selling the prospect for theMarine Corps.

Chief LOMBARDO. Mr. Montgomery, we have a regular checkofflist that we use when we process an applicant. The things that wediscuss with a person when we go through that include discussionof the GI bill. It's one of our benefits, and we feel it's importantthat we go ahead and discuss it.

As far as training for the recruiters goes, I came on recruitingbefore the bill came into effect, so I had to receive training throughVA literature. Recruiters coming in the field with the Coast Guardnow do receive training about the bill. They are told that it is avery good selling tool and that they should go ahead and stress itto the applicant that comes into the office.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you. I knew my time has expired, butthe chairman said I could ask one more question. My question is

, and we better get this on the recordthat you also handle for theReserves some of the recruiting. If that is correct, then tell usbriefly what each service does as far as signing up persons in theReserves and how do you implement the GI bill when recruitingfor the Reserves?

Sergeant CARMINE. Yes, sir. We do have the GI bill for the ArmyReserve, and we basically sell it the same way. If it's a thing thatthe young man or young lady expresses, then we go ahead and de-scribe it to them in detail.

Now, you have to take on an individual basis where you're re-cruiting, and when recruiting up in the State of Connecticut, about

12 3

18

85 to 90 percent of all young men and women are college-bound.This has been drilled into their head at a very young age. So we dobasically sell the GI bill for the Army Reserve and the RegularArmy on a daily basis. All recruiters at the basic recruiting schoolat Fort Benjamin Harrison Indiana are taught about the programon both sides of the house and they are well versed with it. Whenthey come to the field, we have to give them a little additionaltraining and we give them these professional sales tools to assistthem in selling both programs on both sides.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Of course, as you know, they don't have to putup the $100 a month.

Sergeant CARMINE. Yes, sir.Mr. MONTGOMERY. They're eligible, all eligible for the $140 a

month.I am told that in the Army Reserve, that 95 percent of the Army

Reserve is now high school graduates and a high percentage aregoing to college under the GI bill, but I am also told that _your re-cruitment figures are down. Are you holding your strength levels,or is that out of your area?

Sergeant CARMINE. Well, it's kind out of my expertise but, I cansay that I have seven Army Reserve recruiters and the Reserveunits in ray assigned area, are down in strength. As a matter offact, I just spent last weekend, at a drill discussing how we weregoing to build that strength. In my area the Reserve strength isdown.

111':r. MONTGOMERY. All right. Thank you.Laster Chief JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, we do not handle Navy

Reserve programs. The only Navy Reserve programs we sell arethe ones where they serve at least 2 years on active duty whichqualifies them for the same benefits as their regular Navy counter-parts.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Who has the Navy Reserve figures?Master Chief JOHNSON. We have a Naval Reserve Recruiting

Command. They are a special entity and they do their own busi-ness.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Okay.Master Chief JOHNSON. I am not familiar enough with Navy Re-

serve Programs to answer that question.Sergeant GRAHAM. Yes, Mr. Montgomery. I do not recruit the Re-

serve program for the Air Force. We have specific Air Force Re-serve recruiters to present the GI bill to Reserve applicants.

Sergeant COUCH. Sir, we handle the Reserves, and we utilize thatas a selling tool for the Reserves because it's free, and we use thatas, "Hey, enlist in the Marines and it's free education." And wehave been doing pretty good with it.

Chief LOMBARDO. Mr. Montgomery, we have a Reserve programand all Coast Guard recruiters handle Reserves as well as regulars.We have one program that is geared specifically to students. It's asplit-phase program where they can go to recruit training onesummer, the following summer they go to a specialty school.

Most of the people we get are seniors in high school. They comeinto the Reserve because they want to continue on with collegethat following September. The problem we are having in that areais they cannot use the bill until after they complete phase two of

24

19

their training. For some that's a little bit too late because theywould like to go ahead and use that money right after they gradu-ate from high school. That is the only problem we're finding withit.

It's a good tool for the Reserves because most of them come tothe Reserve looking for something to supplement their education orsome financial assistance with their education.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, we might look into that point.I think the way the legislation is drawn up, that the Reserves arenot eligible for 6 months after they have signed up, and some ofthem can get through their basic training m 3 months, so thenthey have to wait 2 or 3 months before they're eligible.

So that might be a point that we would look into down the line,not this year but maybe next year, where you could put the dateback so that as soon as they finish their basic training they mightbecome eligiblethat is, reservistsfor these education benefits.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Jontz?Mr. Jorrrz. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions.I do want to thank the witnesses and say that I appreciate your

statements.I have taken the occasion, Mr. Chairman, to talk to a number of

recruiters in my district at home and have appreciated theirthoughts on this also.

I appreciate your being here today.Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Ridge?Mr. RIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I wanted to embellish and mils ge the compliment that Chair-

man Montgomery paid to you n... Iommissioned officers as beingprimarily responsible for the success of the recruiting program. Asa former staff sergeant, I have always felt that NCO's are responsi-ble for the success of the armed services in general.

Riaughter.]Mr. RIDGE. I am sure that is a view shared by many of us who

had the opportunity and the privilege to serve in that capacity.I have a couple of quick questions. I would like to know from

your experience whether or not the men and women who seek toenlist in one of your branches of the service are aware of the GIbill before they walk in to talk to you? Is it a new program thatyou are selling them, or are they aware of all this literature andall these TV ads and this effort generated by the congressionalintent that was explained by Chairman Montgomery? We wantthese young people to know what's out there. Could you give usyour assessment of whether or not these public relations efforts,these TV commercials, are successful? Are these recruits knowl-edgeable of the GI bill before they walk in? Just a brief answer,please.

Sergeant CARMINE. Yes, sir. For the most part, when people walkinto the recruiting station, or we first talk to an applicant, theyhave a basic idea of the GI bill. They don't know how they get it,how they sign up for it, or what it really does for them, but theyhave heard of the GI bill when they come through the door.

Mr. RIDGE. Thank you.

25

20

Master Chief?Master Chief JOHNSON. I concur with the previous answer, sir. I

feel that in general they know there are GI bill educational bene-fits. Whether they know the specifics about what's available orwhether they have to pay in and contribute or not, I don't have agood feel for those details. But I think in general they knowthey've got the benefits available.

Mr. RIDGE. Sergeant Graham?Sergeant GRAHAM. Yes, Mr. Ridge. Most of the applicants, I

would say probably nine out of ten know about the GI bill. Theydon't know all of the specifics about it, but once they find out whatthey contribute and what we contribute for them, they are moreeager to sign up for the GI bill.

Mr. RIDGE. blaster Sergeant?Sergeant Coucx. Yes, sir, I have to concur with what has been

said already.Mr. RIDGE. I have to just. interrupt briefly, Master Sergeant.Chairman Montgomery took many of us and gave us the opportu-

nity to meet a lot of young men and women at the differentbranches of different basic training stations, and I have to tell youthat the one branch of the service where I was absolutely con-vinced that they were going to be there whether there was a GI billor not was the Marine Corps. The enthusiasmall the recruitswere enthusiastic, but there was a particular sense that I got afterI left the one station. I have to compliment you on that.

Chief Lombardo?Chief LOMBARDO. Yes, sir. We are finding that they know about

the GI bill when they come into the office. What they are reallyjust trying to do is determine which service is more to their liking.

Mr. RIDGE. Is there disagreement overthen I would yield backthe balance of my timeis there any disagreement, based on yourexperience, that it would be in the hest interest of the recruit andthe armed services for us to reduce the level of payment andstretch it out over a longer period of time? Is there any disagtn-ment with that?

No response.]Mr. RIDGE. Thank you.I yield back the balance of my time.Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much.We want to thank all of you for taking time to come and testify

this morning and to share your knowledge with us. Thank you.Our next panel consists of individuals from each of the services

who work with the Montgomery GI Bill on a daily basis. They arethe service program managers for this education program.

With us today are: Lt. Col. Al Bemis, with the U.S. Army; Ms.Judith Korol, representing the Navy; Mr. William Gill, from theU.S. Air Force; Maj. Gary Mueller, U.S. Marine Corps; and Ms.Gayle Christiansen, representing the U.S. Coast Guard.

If you would please be seated. We are very pleased that youcould be with us today. We did not ask you to submit written testi-mony. I would therefore appreciate it if each of you would identifyyourselves in the order in which I called you up, describe your job,and explain your responsibilities relative to the Montgomery GIBill. Thank you.

2G

21

STATEMENT OF LT. COL. AL H. BEMIS, PROGRAM MANAGER FORTHE MONTGOMERY GI BILL, U.S. ARMY

Colonel BEMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us toappear before you on behalf of the Montgomery GI Bill. I am theArmy program manager for the GI bill, and I work for LieutenantGeneral Ono, who is the deputy chief of staff for personnel in head-quarters, Department of the Army.

My responsibilities cover policy, the budget, the implementation,and overseeing of the operations on a day-to-day basis of the Mont-gomery GI Bill as it is implemented within the Active Army, theArmy National Guard, and the U.S. Army Reserve. I would saythat for the Army, the GI bill is a dynamite seller. There is noquestion that education benefits is the most important reason thatyoung men and women come into the Army today. For that reason,we have capitalized on that and made it a significant part of a com-prehensive package of incentives that we use to enlist young menand womenquality young men and womeninto the Army.

I must report to you that our cumulative percentage since the be-ginning of the bill is now running at 79 percent and that for thepast 3 months our participation rate is 92 percent. So, as I said, it'sdynamite within the Army. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF JUDITH KOHOL, PROGRAM MANAGER FOR THEMONTGOMERY GI BILL, U.S. NAVY

Ms. KOROL. Good morning. Thank you very much for this oppor-tunity to appear here today. I am the principal adviser to the Chiefof Naval Operations on all programs pertaining to federally legis-lated educational benefits. I am involved in program policy, andwork closely with committee staffers to track pending legislation. Imanage the program, and work very actively with both the activeand the Reserve Forces.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. GILL, JR., CHIEF, EDUCATIONSERVICES, U.S. AIR FORCE

Mr. Gm- Mr. Chairman, I am William Gill, chief of educationservices for the U.S. Air Force. I am responsible for dependent edu-cation, for the voluntary off-duty education program, including thetuition assistance program, and the GI bill. I am subbing today forone of my colleagues, George Karasik, who is the GI bill programmanager. George is on a long-planned vacation in Florida and re-grets that he can't be here today.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GARY E. MUELLER, PROGRAM MANAGERFOR THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL, U.S. MARINE CORPS

Major MUELLER. Mr. Chairman, I am Gary Mueller from theTraining Department, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps. My posi-tion is full-time education coordinator in the training department,of which one of the responsibilities is action officer for the Mont-gomery GI Bill. My job concerning the Montgomery GI Bill consistsprincipally of being a coordinator, working between variousbranches, ensuring that the implementation and administration ofthe program is carried out.

'27

22

STATEMENT OF GAYLE CHRISTIANSEN, PROGRAM MANAGERFOR THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL, U.S.. COAST GUARD

Ms. CHRISTIANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am Gayle Christiansen fromthe Training and Education Division at Coast Guard headquarters.It is a privilege to appear before you today. I am responsible for theeducation benefits offered to the Coast Guard military personnel,and I work for Rear Admiral Matteson in that regard. He will betestifying before you tomorrow.

My job primarily consists of implementing education benefits, in-cluding the Montgomery GI Bill, in the Coast Guard for CoastGuard personnel.

Mr. DOWDY. We thank each of you for those comments.Mr. Chairman?Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you very much, Wayne.I maybe have a couple of questions, starting with Colonel Bemis.

What is the major change that you thinkand I would say we'lljust go down the lineof what could we do to improve the GI bill?

Colonel BEMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe there are fivechanges that need to be made to the Montgomery GI Bill. The firstis to change the reduction in pay from its current $100 a month for12 months to a lesser amount. I believe that amount should be $60for 20 months, vice other suggestions of $50 for 24 monthsand if Imay explain, it's because the Army is the primary driver of thatdollar amount.

As you well know, in the GI bill an individual who enlists for 2years may get out with a convenience-of-the-Government dischargeas early as 20 months and still vest full benefits. By changing thereduction to $60 for 20 months, that assures that we make the full$1,200 pay reduction. If it were $50 for 24 months, we would prob-ably miss a couple of months in many cases.

The second change that I would recommend, would be to providerelief or benefit to some early-discharge people who now are not el-igible for benefits. There are four categories of people that I wouldinclude. One is individuals who are released early to attend ROTC,some of them with a scholarship, some withoutthe vast majoritywithout.

A second area of early discharges would be people that we sepa-rate due to a reduction-in-force, through no fault of their own.

The third category would be medical discharges without a dis-ability. Primarily, two types. One is those who we find after theyhave joined the Army that they did not really meet the procure-ment standards (ie. medical standards), and therefore we have torelease them. The second is where we find that they have somekind of a physical condition or disability v, hich doesn't meet thosestandards but it existed prior to their enlistment. Neither of thoseare discharged now with a disability; they are just a straight medi-cal discharge.

The last category of early releases would be sole surviving sonsor daughters. As you know, we have never retained any individualwho is the last of the line of the family within the military, and weoffer them that option to get out. I believe that we should providethem benefits also.

28

23

The third change that I would recommend would be to changethe benefit payments so that you provide 1 month's benefits foreach month served. This would eliminate a couple of inequities.One would be an individual who now gets out on a convenience-of-the-Government discharge early and gets the full 36 months of ben-efits; but an individual who gets out with a hardship or a disabilityat that same point in time only gets benefits for the number ofmonths that he has served on active duty. This seems inequitable,and we ought to provide 1 month for 1 month.

A second example is that of an individual who is in what we callthe two-by-four program-2 years of active duty, 4 years' SelectedReserveand then later is separated during their Selected Reservetime. The individual who gets out because of a hardship or disabil-ity gets 1 month for each month of active duty and 1 month foreach 4 months of Selected Reserve. The individual who is separatedfrom the Selected Reserve for unsatisfactory participation revertsback to a straight 2-year GI bill eligible person and gets 36 months,though at the lower rate of $250.

There are two changes that I believe should be made on the Re-serve component side. The first one is to provide for the Reservecomponent people using the Montgomery GI Bill the same broadspectrum of programs that the active component people are eligiblefor. Let them use it for vo-tech, let them use it for OJT, apprentice-shi_p, and let them use it for graduate degrees.

The last change that I would recommend is eliminating the 180 -day requirement to be in the Selected Reserve. There is already arequirement for those individuals to complete their initial activeduty for training. In some cases this is before 180 days; in manycases it is after the 180 days, depending on the length of training.This seems to be a redundant requirement to have both of themthere. As a result, it causes usand granted, it's an administrativeburden, but it's an administrative burden both for the reservist andguardsman and for the service to keep track of both in determiningeligibility. Thank you.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, Al took up all my time.[Laughter.]Mr. MONTGOMERY. But I was just handed a note here that this is

his 20th wedding anniversary. His wife is with him also today, so Ithink that makes it all right.

ughter.]. KOROL. Do I still have time to speak?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Please.Ms. KOROL. Based on my experiences of dealing with this pro-

gram on a day-to-day basis and receiving the phone calls frompeople in the fleet, the number one complaint that I hear is thatthe amount of pay reduction of $100 a month really is too much.

One of the other areas that I am personally concerned about iswhen the individual is not able, for a perfectly legitimate reason, tocomplete the full enlistment, but is discharged honorably. At thatpoint, if it's not hardship or service-connected disability, the indi-vidual loses all benefits and also doesn't have anything to show forthe money he did put into the program.

Based on the Navy experience when we first implemer.A thisprogram in July of 1985, we had an 18 percent participation rate

i2:9

24

and frankly didn't do very well. There were a large number ofpeople who decided to disenroll from the program because theyprobably had never heard about it from their recruiter, and whenthey got to the recruit training commands, they weren't given aproper presentation on the program. And so they decided to disen-roll. In the first year or so, I received a large number of phone callsand also congressional inquiries where individuals regretted theirdecision to disenroll.

So the 60-day window, which would allow people who had disen-rolled back at the beginning of this program, when we did a lessthan superior job of implementing it, would give them the opportu-nity to get back into the program.

On theSelected Reserve side, we are interested in expanding theprograms of education to the same programs that are included forthose individuals on the active-duty side with the exception ofcourses beyond the baccalaureate degree.

Looking at the purposes of the Selected Reserve GI bill, thosebeing to recruit and retain people into the Selected Reserve, wefind that we have no problems whatsoever in recruiting or retain-ing officers in our Reserve Force and this is primarily who this pro-vision would affect. The cost of expanding the program beyond thebaccalaureate degree, which we have estimated at approximately$5 million a year, could be put towards other programs.

Therefore, we would not support benefits for courses beyond thebaccalaureate degree under the Selected Reserve portion.

One other thing that I hear from recruits when they first reportfor active duty and are given the brief at the recruit training com-mands is thatand this is just from their first impression of theprogramthe $300 a month probably isn't enough. They're notlooking at it in today's dollars. Even today if you look at the risingcost of tuition, $300 may not be enough. They are looking at it 5 or6 years down the line. So that may be something to consider, suchas under the Vietnam-era GI bill where there were actual cast-of-living-type increases that were given on an annual or biannualbasis.

Thank you.Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Gill?Mr. Gera.. Mr. Chairman, the Air Force would recommend five

changes: (1) The single pay schedule of the $60 times 20 months; (2)the 1 month of training for 1 month of honorable service; (3) allowthe 30 days to disenroll that is in both H.R. 3208 and H.R. 3180; (4)would be the death benefit or the total disability benefit that is inH.R. 3280; and, (5) the chapter 106, I agree with Colonel Bemiswith regard to the same program opportunities as is in chapter 30,recommend dropping the 180 days down to completion of basictraining or initial training; and then remove the one-half time be-cause right now that is a barrier to the part-time fully-employedreservist.

I am proud to announce to you that, as Sergeant Graham alludedto in his testimony, that the Air ForceI think the last time Gen-eral Hickey testified to you, we had about 44 percent participationrate, last month it was. ur to 68.5. So we have already made anumber of changes in the Air Force.

3.0

..

..

25

Major MUELLER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reemphasizea couple of points made by Colonel Bemis and the other membersof the panel regarding the Marine Corps. In the day-to-day imple-mentation of the program, I generally support providing 1 monthof benefits for each month served. When we're talking about peoplethat had disabilities that were noted and waived at entrance intothe service and then were medically released, we find that there isa problem. I feel that they should draw some educational benefitsinstead of forfeiting the money they have contributed.

Also, concerning the $60 a month for 20 months issue, I favorstretching it out. The Marine Corps supports this position and inmy personal opinion, I feel that it will help get more people to jointhe program than already have. Presently in the Marine Corps weare getting around a 75 percent enrollment rate without using anyof the kickers or other devices to solicit increased enrollment.

We also find that if a $50 a month for 24 months program wouldbe acceptable since we do not have any 2-year enlistments.

Another thing I would just like to reemphasize again is that wewould be interested in looking at adding voi... tional school and ap-prenticeship programs to chapter 106 along with a less-than-half-time enrollments in the program. Waiving the 180-day rule whilehaving the program begin after completion of boot camp would alsobe beneficial. Thank you, sir.

Ms. CHRISTIANSEN. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Montgomery, thereare three things that I would like to see changed that would makethe Montgomery GI Bill more responsive to the Coast Guard'sneeds. First of all, the Coast Guard is seeing more married recruitsnow than ever before, and therefore the $60 a month for 20 monthsreduction in pay would be more acceptable to us than the $100 amonth for 12 months.

We get a lot of feedback to the effect that many people wouldlike to participate but they just simply cannot afford it. So thatwould be the first thing I wctild like to see changed.

The second is to allow an extended period of time in the first 14days to make the decision to affirm enrollment or to disenroll. Asthe recruiters have said and I want to reemphasize, it is one of themost turbulent times in a person's life, and not a time to make adecision of this magnitude. So we would appreciate having an ex-tension of time.

Last, we would like to see the one-time 60-day window to allowpeople to enroll if they did not do so during the first 14 days of re-cruit training and also at the beginning of the program when thebill was new and we are not as experienced as we are now. Manypeople have said to us that they didn't realize what they wereopting out from when they did so during recruit training becauseof the turbulence.

Those are the three that would be the most meaningful to theCoast Guard. Thank you. .

Mr. DOWDY. I want to do something a little unusual here. Wehave a witness that we invited to testify and if all of you would justkeep your seat.

Colonel Bemis, today being your anniversary, we will let you gosit by your wife.

[Laughter.]

, 31

26

Mr. DOWDY. We have another Member of Congress who had an-other commitment this morning, and we wanted to accommodatehis schedule now because he has other committee hearings.

He is a member of the Armed Services Committee, which has ju-risdiction with our committee on the GI bill. Congressman DuncanHunter, our colleague from the State of California, is a member ofthe Armed Services Committee, and was instrumental in movingthis piece of legislation through earlier this year.

Duncan, we thank you very much for coming by to testify, andwe welcome your input.

Then we will resume the questions from the remainder of themembers for the panel.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the chairman would yield?Mr. DOWDY. Yes.Mr. Smrm of New Jersey. I too would like to remark from my

side of the aisle to extend a very warm greeting to Duncan Hunter,who, during the Vietnam war received the Bronze Star for some 25helicopter assaults that he was involved in, and has been a verydistinguished member of the Armed Services Committee and agood, close personal friend of mine.

Welcome to the committee, Duncan.

STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE INCONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNI

Mr. HUNTER. Well, thank you very much, Chris, and Mr. Chair-man, and all members of the committee, and Mr. Ridge especially,another Vietnam veteran over here.

Thank you, Miss Kaptur.Of course, the gentleman for whom the bill is named, the great

Sonny Montgomery. I will be glad to be one of your spear-carriersin this effort to put this bill together.

I am going to try to make it short and sweet so that your otherdistinguished witnesses can carry on.

I want to speak to a gap in the bill.I would ask that my statement be made part of the record, Mr.

Chairman, if that could be done.Mr. DOWDY. So ordered.Mr. HUNTER. As you know, the Vietnam-era GI bill was initiated

to protect the future interests of and provide incentives to individ-uals entering the Armed Forces. Over the years these incentiveshave helped to attract the best of the best to all branches of themilitary so that the United States can continue to enjoy the securi-ty and democratic freedoms that were established by our forefa-thers.

I like the basic logic that the gentleman from Mississippi put for-ward in our committee, and I know in this committee also, whenhe laid out the fact that the average American family knows whatthe GI bill is. They know when they sit around the breal fast tableand decide whether a member of that family is going to be joiningthe service, they know that he is going to be getting some benefitsthat will enable him to make a better life for himself and maybehis future family once he gets out of the service. That predictabil-ity, I think, is one of the most important aspects of the GI bill.

32

27

On June 1, 1987, the President approved H.R. 1085, the newMontgomery GI Bill Continuation Act, as Public Law 100-48, andwhile overall it has proven to be a very popular and effective pro-gram, it has unfortunately left a loophole through which certainveterans have fallen. I think that the gentleman and probablymost of the members of the committee are familiar with this par-ticular loophole.

Every eligible person is entitled to 1.5 months of educational as-sistance for each month of active-duty service given after January1, 1955, up to 45 months. Simply stated, veterans who enter theservice prior to January 1, 1977, or after that date due to the de-layed-entry program, who are honorably discharged from activeduty after June 1, 1966, are entitled to educational benefits for 10years after release. Butand this is the kickerthe terminationdate for the old GI bill is presently December 31, 1989.

Under the new bill the individuals who have enlisted, re-enlisted,or maintained status in the Active Reserve for no less than 6 yearsafter June 30, 1985, are entitled to educational assistance benefitsof up to $5,040 for undergraduate training at institutes of higherlearning.

This bill was established to assist in the readjustment of veteransto civilian life following their separation from military life and toassist in recruiting and retaining high-quality personnel by theArmed Forces. I think it's fairly clear that the GI bill is one of themajor tools now that is helping our recruitment and retention ofquality personnel. It is working.

There were some questions from certain leaders in the adminis-tration when a number of you on this subcommittee were fightingfor the bill. It is working. It is an important tool in our arsenal forbringing quality people into the military, maybe more importantly,keeping those people in the military.

I think we need to address this matter, and let me get to theloophole. If a person right now retires from the service, for exam-ple, on May 1988, he is not eligible to collect educational benefitsunder the new program because he hasn't completed 6 years onactive duty and he hasn't necessarily re-enlisted for 6 years. Thebenefits that he would collect under the old bill will expire as ofDecember 31, 1989. So that means essentially this person is goingto collect only 18 months of educational assistance.

This was brought to my attention when a constituent came up tome at a barbecue and let me know very clearly what he felt aboutthis loophole through which he fell. His name was Do...g Allen, andbecause of his bringing this to my attention and the work of ourstaff people, we have put together this presentation this morning.So I would hope that we could do something in tying this loopholeup.

I think the great thing about the GI bill is that it treats peopleevenly,. it's predictable, and you don't have to have a lawyer withyou when you sit down at the breakfast table and decide thatyou're going to go into the servicealthough a lot of people whojoined the service to be in nuclear artillery and found themselvesin the motor pool wish they had a lawyer when they went downthere and signed up. That's the great thing about the GI bill, and I

79-871 0 - 88 - 2 33

28

think that correcting this one inadequacy would do great things forit.

Thank you for letting me make this presentation this morning. Iapologize for being late.

[The prepared statement of Congressman Hunter appears on p.128.]

Mr. Jowrz (Presiding). Thank you very much for the statementpointing out the loophole.

Let me ask at this point if Chairman Montgomery has a ques-tion?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I would like to thank Duncan Hunter forcoming over this morning. Let the record show how much we doappreciate what you did. The bill was jointly referred, and we hadto get the bill out of both committees, and you were one of the realkey leaders of it.

Mr. HUNTER. Well, I want to thank the gentleman from Missis-sippi. You know, I was thinking when we put this thing togetherhow great it would look if it was the "Hunter GI bill."

[Laughter.]Mr. HUNTER. But maybe "Hunter-Montgomery."[Laughter.]Mr. HUNTER. But this is the gentleman from Mississippi's bill,

and again, I am just a mechanic.Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't know, some fellow in California

walked up to me and said, "I'm running against Duncan Hunter." Isaid, "Fellow, I just can't help you at all."

[Laughter.]Mr. HUNTER. God bless you.Mr. MONTGOMERY. He's a strong supporter of what a lot of us be-

lieve in.Duncan, actuallyand it should be looked into, Mr. Chairman,

we have heard some other complaints of this areawe need toknow, quite frankly, what it would cost. We need to get some costfigures on this.

But, Duncan, when we were drawing up the GI bill, the Depart-ment of Defense said they felt about 35 percent of the military, hadnot used the benefits and they were eligible, and they were threat-ening to get out of the service back in 1986, 1987, and be able to getin all their benefits.

Mr. HUNTER. That's correct.Mr. MorrrGomERy. So, working with the Department of Defense,

we extended past 1989 so that all those that were on active dutywould be eligible after they got out of the service after 1989 for 10years to use their education benefits.

I just point that out to you that that's how it got in there. Thenwe certainly ought to look into the matter of those you said wereloopholed. But the Department of Defense didn't ask at that timethat those be included, and we took what they requested. So Iwould say, Mr. Chairman, unless Duncan Hunter has any morecomments on that, that we should look at it and see what can bedone.

Mr. HUNTER. I appreciate it.Mr. JONTZ. Mr. Smith?

34

29

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I just want to thank Mr. Hunter forhis pointing out to the committee the loophole. I think the chair-man has said it all. We will look very carefully, seek some cost esti-mates, and if it looks like it's something that needs truly to bedone, this committee I am sure will be very amenable to that.

Again, I want to thank you for coming to the committee. It'sgood to see you again.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you.Mr. JONTZ. Thank you.Miss Kaptur?Miss KAPTUR. No queeLions, Mr. Chairman, but I do thank Mr.

Hunter for his testimony.Mr. Jozaz. Mr. Ridge'?Mr. RIDGE. I want to thank my friend and colleague.I think it's important for the record to note that the GI bill to

which you refer and the gap to which you refer would provide ben-efits, but not as generous as those that are available now under theMontgomery GI Bill. So I think it's worthwhile for us to see if wecan extend that eligibility so those veterans are as well served aswe want them to be. Thank you.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you very much.Mr. Jozaz. I thank the gentleman.Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Jozaz. We do have a vote pending, but I think from the

standpoint ofwell, we will have to make a decision, whether wewill try to finish questioning this panel before the vote or not. Letme ask the committee members how you would prefer to proceed.Would you prefer to try to finish the questioning of this panel sothat we can dismiss them?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I have no °the': questions.Mr. Jozaz. Mr. Smith, do you have any questions?Mr. &Arm of New Jersey. At this point I don't, but I will very

carefully read the testimony. I was detained, as you probably no-ticed. We had a markup in the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Iwould have left to come here because I think this is extremely im-portant, but one of the resolutions was my own and I had to stayand talk about it.

So I will look very carefully at the comments you have made,and I may have some further questions, and I would like to submitthem to you if I do.

Mr. Jozaz. Miss Kaptur?Miss KAPTUR. I just have a real brief question of each panelist if

they might just tell us, not the specific changes you want to bemade, but what have you noted the differences are as you have ad-ministered this program in both attracting and retaining goodpeople in the armed services. I am just curious as to your personalreaction to the GI bill. I know with Sonny sitting here you are notgoing to say anything that is negative, but I am interested in theimpact that you have observed in the armed services as a result ofthe coming onstream of the New GI Bill.

Colonel BEMIS. Thank you, Miss Kaptur. I think that what wehave seen in the Army is that over the last 6 years that educationand education benefits has been the biggest draw of quality kids.The kid coming out of high school, that's what he wants. And the

35

30

Army capitalized on that early in 1981 with its education, theArmy college fund, and when the Montgomery GI Bill came along,we put them both together and put them out there and just havegone beyond expectations.

The past year, we have exceeded the percentage of high-qualityenlistees in the Army, far exceeded any year in history for Armyrecruiting. So the impact, the record speaks for itself, it's there.

Ms. KOROL. The Navy is still the only service that is growing,and of course our personnel accession requirements have increasedevery year. There is a shrinking pool of available people, and theadditional benefits, our recruiters believe, attract more people. Itgets the young people into the office and allows the recruiters to dotheir job better.

Mr. GILL. From the Air Force standpoint, the Montgomery GIBill has been extremely successful. In fiscal year 1986 31 percent ofour enlisted recruits had been in college prep curriculums. About44 percent of those youngsters had attended some form of postsec-ondary education prior to an enlisting. I am glad to report to youtoday that there are only 495 non-high school graduates in the U.S.Air Force.

So the Montgomery GI Bill has been extremely effective. It's apart of a package that indicates that the number one reason for en-listing in the Air Force today among non-prior service people is to"continue my education."

Mtkjor MUELLER. Yes, ma'am. Our personnel chief will discuss thequality overview. But this is an interesting note. Since the Mont-gomery GI Bill was enacted, the quality of the Marine recruits hasgone up. Brigadier General Rea ls will break it down further tomor-row.

Another interesting sidelight, ma'am, is that it is a perceptionamong our recruiters, in going out into the various communities inthe country, that the schools are opening up more because of theMontgomery GI Bill. They are able to go into counseling offices andalso some of the private schools to present the military package.

Ms. CHRISTIANSEN. Miss Kaptur, it is a marvelous recruitingdevice, and it also has opened the door for the Coast Guard toenable our recruiters to go to the high schools and to the collegesto make them aware of the mission and functions of the CoastGuard. The Montgomery GI Bill has made the Coast Guard com-petitive for us with the sister service in DOD in attracting college-bound high-quality individuals.

Miss KAPTUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Jorrrz. Mr. Ridge?Mr. RIDGE. Just one question and a brief response from all the

panelists, if you might. I understand the uncertainty of basic train-ing. But I also understand the need for these young men andwomen to decide for themselves whether or not they want into theGI bill. There is a lot of effort from the recruiter through the basictraining station to educate them as to what it's all about. Andwhile there is uncertainty, I don't think it's so traumatic that inthat 4 or 6 weeks, however long, they can't make a reasonable, in-telligent decision. And we want to encourage them to do thatwithin a limited frame of time because the other problem, the

3.6

31

down side, is if you let it go on too long, there may be some equivo-cation and there is always the problem of paperwork.

What is the maximum cutoff tune we ought to give your new re-cruits to make that decision without keeping it open-ended?

Colonel BErdis. Thank you, Mr. Ridge. From my perspective andthe Army perspective, we believe it should be at reception station,which is that period of time where the individual transitions fromcivilian life to military life. In the Army he is not in basic trainingyet.

Mr. RIDGE. ThiteS right.Colonel BEMIS. He is there. He is getting his hair cut, his finance

record is being created, his personnel record is being created, he isgetting issued uniforms. All those things are happening. If the re-cruiting force hasand we believe the Army recruiting force hasdone that job ahead of time, he has already made tly.t decision andall it takes is a reinforcement with the movie and the briefing andanswering the questions.

The problem I have going beyond into basic training is we've gotto train all the drill sergeants, the first sergeants, the companycommanders to be able to answer GI bill questions. The last thing atrainee wants to do is see his chill sergeant.

ughter.1Mr. RIDGE. I understand that.Ms. K0R0L. From the Navy perspective, we believe that we are

getting our recruiting command onboard by better informing theapplicants before they even go to basic training. We feel very com-fortable that with this new policy that we have instituted, the ap-plicants will know about the Montgomery GI Bill long before theyever report for active duty. We also are implementing another newprocedure. On January 1 we will begin automatic pay reductions,meaning everybody's pay will be automatically reduced. This isconsistent with the intent of the law that everyone is automaticallyenrolled.

Consequently, we don't want to lengthen this decision processand end up having to reverse these automatic pay reductions thatwill occur in the first full month to which the person is entitled topay. We will continue to have the GI bill presentation and decision-making process done within the first 2 weeks, probably within thefirst week, at the recruit training command regardless of howmuch time you allow us to do that.

Mr. RIDGE. Thank you.Mr. Jortrz. I apologize for interrupting, but we are going to have

to ask you to either be very brief or to wait until we come backbecause we just have about 5 minutes to get over and vote.

Mr. RIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I would let the panel conclude. I amsure they can conclude briefly.

Mr. Giu. We would say 30 days.Mr. RIDGE. You say 30 days?Mr. GILL. For tie Air Force.Major MUELLER. Sir, I believe we are going to continue doing it

on day two at 0800.Ms. CHRISTIANSEN. For the Coast Cuard, 30 days.Mr. RIDGE. Thank you very much.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

32

Mr. Jorrrz. Let me thank the panel and dismiss you at this point.We do have three other very important panels to hear, and we

will recess the committee for 10 minutes so we can take our vote.We will then be back. Thank you.

[Recess.]Mr. Jorrrz. The subcommittee will come to order, please.We will ask our next panel to come forward, please.Thank you, gentlemen.Our next panel includes representatives of military associations.

We have with us today Col. Edward Smith, of the Association ofthe United States Army; Mr. Edward Nolan of the Fleet ReserveAssociationis Mr. Nolan here?

Mr. NOLAN. I am present, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Jorrrz. Okay. Welcome.Capt. Charles Buesener, representing the Naval Reserve Associa-

tion.We also have Mr. Nelson Fink of the Air Force Sergeants Asso-

ciation; Mr. Richard Johnson of the Non Commissioned Officers As-sociation; and Mr. Chuck Partridge of the National Association ofUniformed Services.

Because of the number of witnesses, I would ask again that eachwitness limit his testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written state-ment, of course, will be included in the printed hearing record.

It is a pleasure to have each of you here today.Colonel Smith, would you like to begin?

STATEMENT OF COL. EDWARD P. SMITH, USA (RET.), DIRECTOROF MEMBERSHIP SERVICES, ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITEDSTATES ARMY

Colonel Srarx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Sir, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the

170,000 members of our organization, the Association of the UnitedStates Army.

Of the five major issues incorporated in the three bills, AUSAmembers strongly support three. I will explai, ,ach briefly.

First, the compensation payment. In an eh. ..ier hearing on H.R.3001, the Association indicated its full support to legislation to paya death benefit to beneficiaries of any Armed Forces member enti-tled to education assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill whodied while serving on active duty. Because H.R. 3208 incorporatesthe previously proposed action and wisely expands the list of cate-gories of eligibles for compensation payment to those Armed Forcesmembers who had intended to take advantage of educational assist-ance but subsequently were unable to do so because of physical ormental disability or death, we support legislative actions guaran-teeing compensation payment to entitled survivors or the individ-ual's estate.

Second, a revised contribution schedule. While the Associationcontinues to strenuously oppose the contribution principle, if suchcontributions must remain a mandatory feature, the Association ofthe United States Army supports providing alternative contribu-tion schedules in addition to offering a reduction in pay of $100 per

;38

33

month for 12 months, AUSA recommends offering a payment of$60 per month for 20 months, as included in H.R. 3208.

Third, the enrollment period. We applaud the record of all theservices in encouraging GI bill participation and enrollment, andparticularly the Army's present monthly rate approaching the mid-90 percent. We nevertheless believe an opportunity should be avail-able at the end of basic training, whether that be 30 days, 45 or 60days, to enroll any trainee who for any reason had not previouslyenrolled.

Sir, `, 3fore concluding, I would like to take advantage of the offerthat you afforded to us to add to testimony. One additional area,which we believe would improve the effectiveness of the Montgom-ery GI Bill, which is to allow Selected Reserve eligibles under chap-ter 108 and 106 to use benefits for the same programs as active-duty eligibles are provided under chapter 30.

In summary, AUSA members urge passage of the legislation toprovide a compensation payment under the conditions of H.R. 3208;to permit enrollees to choose a contribution schedule as proposweH.R. 3208; to allow recruits to make a final decision in whit, oparticipate at the conclusion of basic training, as included in H.R.3180; and to amend the current bill to make provisions of the Se-lected Reserve more equitable, particularly as pertaining to attend-ance at vocational-technical schools and graduate schools. Thankyou.

[The prepared statement of Colonel Smith appears on p. 132.]Mr. Jowrz. Thank you.I think we will proceed in the order in which you are seated. So,

Mr. Fink, if we could call you at this pint.

STATEMENT OF NELSON L. FINK, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, MILI-TARY AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AIR FORCE SERGEANTSASSOCIATION

Mr. FINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a real privilege

and opportunity for us in the Air Force Sergeants Associationagain to be part of the testimony on the bills before the subcommit-tee this morning.

As stated in our previous appearances before this committee, wesupport reducing the member's contribution to $60 a month andspreading the payments out over a 20-month period. The 60-20 for-mula is more affordable and ensures the member will fulfill his orher financial obligation to the GI bill before any education assist-ance is authorized.

Based on our observations as a member of Chairman Montgom-ery's fact-finding trip, extending the consideration period for par-ticipation in the GI bill from the first 14 days of basic training tothe end of the basic training period would give the recruit moretime to consider such an important decision.

Since the period of basic training varies between services, we rec-ommend the period of consideration be extended through thefourth week of basic military training to maintain uniformity be-tween the services.

39

34

Further, we would recommend recruits wno do not initiallychoose to participate in the GI bill program during the establishedenrollment period be given an opportunity to enroll at a later dateor disenroll at a later date, somewhere around the 60-day period.

Our Association strongly supports the provisions of H.R. 3180 topermit service Secretaries to authorize transferability of GI billbenefits to eligible dependents if the servicemember is dischargedunder hardship or disability conditions or completes 20 years ofactive military service.

Additionally, our membership will support the provisions of H.R.2950 to pay an educational assistanc- allowance to eligible individ-uals pursuing an approved flight training program.

A few observations that I have had that I would pass on to thecommittee for their consideration is that one of the biggest reasonsfor the support of the 60-20 formula change is that some of ouryoung married enlisted recruits are having a terrible time justtrying to maintain the family budget within the first period ofbasic training. With $100 a month coming out of their pay whenthe wife and children's whereabouts as far as their first duty sta-tion, is an awful decision to make when their changing society.

The extension period, changing from the 14th through the fourthweek of basic training gives that individual a chance while his lifestyle, his mannerisms and so forth are taking place, to make a de-cision that would affect him for the rest of his life.

Transferability, of course, has been stated many times in varyingways, and I think all of them have the credibility that for allfamily crises that may arise in a young serviceman's or service-woman's initial entry into the service, medical disabilities or anyother various incident that may come up, they should be allowed totransfer their unused portion of the GI bill to their beneficiary.

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Again, I thank youfor this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fink appears on p. 135.]Mr. Jorriz. Thank you.Captain Buesener?

STATEMENT OF CAPT. CHARLES A. BUESENER, DIRECTOR OFLEGISLATION, NAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION

Captain BUESENER. Again let me say it's my pleasure to appearbefore you. I intend to talk a little bit this morning on the applica-bility for this program to the reservists, the selected reservists.

Number one, its working extremely well. Not only are we get-ting the high-quality recruits in our initial young enlistmentpeople, we are for the first time have been able to crack into thejunior college market with a program that is both appealing for thestudent and useful for the Naval Reserve.

What we are finding also is the GI bill is a great retention toolfor us and gives us the force stability that we need. One of theproblems with the high-tech Naval Reserve is the length of timefor training and the cost to train. I have here several sheets thatgive you an idea of what we are talking about.

Some prime examples: Our cost to train these people and getthem qualified, i.e., get them the combat-readiness that they need

35

to deploy is running us abo.-A $100 a day. Some of these schools run68 days for one Navy enlisted classification qualcation that isnecessary to put that man in a combat arms unit. We are talkingabout losing $6,800 if we don't retain that person with enoughcarrot to make the investment possible. The Reserve component istruly an All-Volunteer Force because in fact if they don't like it,they coo walk tomorrow.

What we are seeing is that the GI bill with the 6-year enlist-ments going up at an astronomically good rate, we now have popu-lation stability so that we can invest this capital in the person andget the payback that is so essential for us.

The annual charge or cost in Reserve pay Navy for just this typeof training is over $13 million. If we can keep these high-techtrained people, the GI bilk in a sense is paid for by increased reten-tion. I would urge you to do that.

As we get further down the line, I would urge you also to consid-er, in addition to transferring this vested entitlement, if I am al-lowed to say that word, to a dependent and a child, because whatwe find is after the gentleman gets on in years a little bit, he's notgoing to go to college, but he would be very willing to stay on andplow beck that training for another 5 years of "sweat equity" toget his child enrolled in college.

When this man is coming up for first-class and chief petty offi-cer, his focus is more on the education of his children, and that be-comes a demanding thing in his life. Sometimes they have to getout and not come to the Reserves because they need that secondjob on the weekend. And when that occurs, the taxpayers lose be-cause we have to start with a new guy with no qual's and it willcost us another $65,000 to get him up to that readiness qualifica-tion.

Since this BI bill is primarily an enlisted program, and sincemuch of our technical training is relatively equivalent to vo-tech,we would like to see the GI bill for the Reserves also include voca-tional training. In the development of our master training plansfor these people, we are giving them military qual's when vocation-al training is suitable, vis-a-vis welding, vis-a-vis underwaterdiving. These are skills that are available in the vo-tech communi-ty. When the come to us with the certification, we give the militaryreadiness qualification, but on the other side of the street we canalso allow that GI bill to directly affect and increase our militaryreadiness if we do so it becomes a force readiness multiplier.

One of the big things coming down in the future is health careprofessionals. I don't know whether you realize it, but for us tosend a man into an X-ray technician school at Bethesda, which isan absolute requirement for qualification, costs us $37,500. It is ri-diculous for us to not do everything we can relative to transferabil-ity to dependents to amortize this cost, because really the taxpayeris going to be way ahead if we do so.

So we support all of those amendments that would broaden thescope and broaden the applicability of this for the individualmember. Thank you again for your time, and I will answer anyquestions later. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Captain Buesener appears on p. 138.]Mr. Joisrrz. Mr. Nolan?

41.1*

36

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. NOLAN, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SEC-RETARY, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION ACCOMPANIED BYPETER ROSS, PRESIDENTMr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, the Fleet Reserve Association compli-

ments this subcommittee for its astuteness in promptly consideringthe legislation to improve the Montgomery GI Bill's implementa-tion and effectiveness. You have addressed all of the negative rea-sons the recruits gave us last February for nonparticipation in thepeacetime GI bill.

Provisions of H.R. 2950 to allow individuals to use their benefitsof the Montgomery GI Bill to pursue flight training are basic andcontain requirements to protect the program's future integrityfrom abuse. The liberalizations offered by H.R. 3180 and H.R. 3208are similar.

After carefully analyzing the provisions of each bill, the FleetReserve Association must wholeheartedly endorse H.R. 3208 be-cause its comprehensive provisions address the correction of thecurrent negative features of the peacetime GI bill in a more practi-cal manner.

The Fleet Reserve Association strongly recommends the additionof two provisions to H.R. 3208 which will safeguard certain career-ist benefits. Please recognize that in the attempt to achieve successin the All-Volunteer Force, the enlisted military careerist has beenthe helpless victim of VEAP, various bonus programs, and vacillat-ing compensation policies. Based on this experience, the militarycareerist perceives that he is the victim of an erosion of benefits. Avery large percentage of active-duty personnel recognize VEAP forexactly what it was: a very poor imitation of the cold-war GI bill.Therefore, they did not elect to participate in that education. Be-cause of this, they are not included in the temporary enrollnientperiod as contained in H.R. 3208. FRA feels that any such personnow serving on active duty most certainly should be included inthe temporary enrollment period provided for in H.R. 3208.

Our second amendment would be to include those persons nowserving on active duty who are entitled to benefits of the cold-warGI bill that will forfeit or shorten this entitlement because theyhave remained on active duty beyond a time that would allow theirschooling to be completed before 31 December 1989.

These two added provisions would enhance the Montgomery GIBill, enable it to proclaim to all young Americans now serving orconsidering serving in our Armed Forces that service in the uni-form of our country and the benefits of higher education go handin hand.

In sharing your goal, we offer this testimony and urge you to se-riously consider our recommendations in support of H.R. 2950 andH.R. 3208. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to ex-press our views today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nolan appears on p. 141.]Mr. Jorrrz. Thank you very much.Mr. Johnson?

42;

37

STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLA-TIVE AFFAIRS, THE NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIA-TION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Mr. Richard JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I would like to talk briefly this morning in my allotted time

about two things: one, the participation fees; and two, the focus ofthis GI bill on veterans and its impact on the career Air Force.

With regard to participation fees, NCOA is noting a disturbingtrend which we have alluded to in our prepared statement. That isthat we have veterans paying for things today which used to be theproduct of reward by a grateful Nation for service. We have veter-ans contributing to their own education programs. We have veter-ans contributing to their own health care programs. We have vet-erans paying for services and home loan guarantee programs.

It is a very disturbing trend, and rather than sitting here todaytrying to develop a program to reduce the fee to make it more ap-petizing to young recruits, we should be sitting here figuring outhow we get rid of that fee, how do we eliminate that fee in the firstplace, why is the fee there?

It was not envisioned as an original part of the Montgomery GIBill. It was a mustache colored on the program by the Senate. Itwas a mustache colored on the program in hopes of making theNew GI Bill, the Montgomery GI Bill a failure. That was the onlyreason that fee was created. We ought to be plotting its demisetoday.

Nov, certainly NCOA would support extending it, extending thepayment period to make it more palatable, to give the opportunityof participation to a larger group of recruits. But again, I think thegoal of this committee should be to eliminate that fee altogether,and with the elimination of that fee, we would eliminate discrimi-nation against those who now cannot afford to participate, wouldeliminate most of the administrative problems that go along withthat fee, and in fact would virtually eliminate all the problemsthat are associated with the program now.

Now with regard to the veterans in the career force. We have inthe Armed Forces today a whole generation of servicemembers whoenlisted prior to June 1985 but after January 1977, who virtuallyhave no GI bill. Now, a lot of people will tell you that the VEAPprogram is an education program that's worth something. Andindeed it is. It is better than nothingbut not by much.

The Montgomery GI Bill, as it was originally drafted, en, .sionedincluding those people who continued to serve in the Armen Forcesin its provisions. Once again, the other body decided that thosepeople were already on the hook for service, did not need the bene-fits of a New GI Bill, did not need to participate in the Montgom-ery GI Bill program, and they wrote it out. When it was writtenout, they also wrote off new enrollments in the veterans educationassistance program. Through the efforts of the chairman, that pro-gram was oi.an to new enrollments for a short period earlier thisyear, but unfortunately a lot of folks still didn't get the word thatthat was their last chance to participate in the GI bill.

Moreover, though, these folks are veterans entitled to a GI billjust as every other veteran has been provided a GI bill since 1945.

38

Yet they are a forgotten generation that will remain such until theprovisions of this bill are open to their enrollment.

Therefore, we strongly plead with this committee to includethose folks and to include the provisions for military retirees, aswas pointed out by Duncan Hunter in his testimony earlier today,and by a couple of previous witnesses.

That concludes my remarks. Thank you.[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears on p. 146.]Mr. JoNTz. Thank you.Mr. Partridge?

STATEMENT OF COL. CHARLES C. PARTRIDGE, USA (RET.), LEGIS-LATIVE COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF UNIFORMEDSERVICES

Colonel PARTRIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the National

Association for the Uniformed Services. We support the bills whichbroaden the applicability of the Montgomery GI Bill and extend itsavailability to members of the Armed Forces. We also support Mr.Duncan Hunter's proposal regarding the removal of the 31 Decem-ber 1989 delimiting date on the Vietnam bill. I won't discuss eachof the provisions of the bills, but I would like to concentrate mytime on one provision, which is the transfer of the entitlement todependents.

We support the proposal in H.R. 3180 which would authorize aservicemember to transfer his basic entitlement to his dependents.Veterans who elect to make the Armed Forces their professionhave little cpportunity to accumulate sufficient savings to providea college education for their children. As a result, many at the mid-career point reluctantly leave the service for higher-paying profes-sions so that they can afford to send their children to school.

This provision would be very appealing to senior NCO's who arehard-pressed today to meet the high costs of college education fortheir children. It would also help bring the level of compensationfor military service up to the modern day in comparison with thenew Federal Employee Retirement System which has a thrift plan.There is no such plan for military compensation. This would be theclosest to it for individuals who initially elect the GI bill. Further,private industry is increasingly providing tuition assistance fortheir employees and members of their employees' families. Westrongly urge that this entitlement to transfer be given thoroughconsideration. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Colonel Partridge appears on p. 150.]Mr. Jowrz. Chris Smith?Mr. Shunt of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I want to thank our panel for their very fine comments. They

will be most helpful as we craft a final bill, and I do think that thiscommittee will move on a bill, maybe not one of those that hasbeen introduced, but a composite bill that takes the best of eachand puts it all together. Your input certainly is very, very helpful.

I really don't have any ques tions, because you have uched onall the main pointstransferability, refundability, extending thetime, the eliminating date, as Mr. Partridge indicated a moment

44

39

agoto follow up on what Mr. Hunter had said. So I think we havea lot of good ideas for reforming, updating, if you will, an alreadygood program, the Montgomery GI Bill. So I thank you for yourcomments today.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Chris.As I look at our witnesses, really the GI bill is your bill. I look at

you, we've all been on trips together, we've seen this through. Wehave worked on different groups in the Congress, and we havetalked through these problems. As you have heard -ne say, I have afeeling that we better move slowly on some of these suggestions tobe sure that we've got a good picture of what we are trying to do.

Of course, this is up to the chairman of this subcommittee andthe ranking minority member, what they would want to bring out.But Colonel Smith, would you go again, and each of you, and giveyour top priority of what your Association is supporting as far aschanging of the bill or not changing it?

Colonel SMITH. Sir, just to select one top priority, our top prioritywould be the compensation payment because it's equitable andunder the expansion as proposed in one bill it would include morecategories than just the one category in H.R. 3001.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Okay.Mr. FINK. Mr. Chairman, Nelson Fink, from the Air Force Ser-

geants Association. I think if I had to pick just one priority for theAssociation to support, it would have to be the reduction in thepayment from the $100 in 12 months to the proposed $60 for 20months that we might have an increase in the participation rate,and it would help a lot of our young married Air Force enlistedpeople take advantage of an outstanding program. Thank you.

Mr. MOMGOIttERY. We had somebody out to move around talkingabout the GI bill. The report came backI'm not sure which serv-ice it wasthat one of the complaints why they couldn't pay the$100 a month was that their phone bill calling home was around$100 a month.

[Laughter.]Mr. MONTGOMERY. I'm a little concerned about that in that I

would hate to see them miss out on educational benefits becausethat was $100 a month that they had to spend for phoning andthey just felt like they couldn't do both.

Catain?Captain BUESENER. In terms of the Naval Reserve for the select-

ed reservists, I believe the biggest and most important paybackwould be the transferability of the educational benefit to a desig-nated. bona fide dependent to increase ....etention benefit we couldget out of this.

Mr. Storm of New Jersey. Would the chairman yield?Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, I would be glad to yield.Mr. Sham of New Jersey. I thank the chairman for yielding.Captain, maybe you could just clear up something for me. I am

reading your testimony, and you point out that H.R. 3180 and H.R.3208 would be conditionally supported on the transferability issueproviding it was fully applicable to the vested Reserve Force per-sonnel.

It's my understanding that we put that in the bill, but perhapswe are in error?

45

40

Captain BUESENER. Well, not, it was my understanding. I justwanted to make sure.

Mr. Spam of New Jersey. Oh. Okay. You are just reinforcingthat point.

Captain BUESENER. Yes.Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Okay. Thank you.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. MONTGOMERY. You know, as I mentioned earlier, the trans-

ferability was in our original bill, but because of cost it was takenout. You know, I do think it has some merit. But as I mentionedearlier, we need to really follow up and be sure what the costfactor is. Of course, if you could keep some naval aviators and someAir Force and technical people in the service by transferability,you wouldn't have to keep but 15 or 20 of them and you'd save $1million on them right there. I'm sure it would help pay for thetransferability. So I think it does have some merit.

Captain BUESENER. Yes, sir. When you weren't here, as part ofmy testimony I pointed out that for us to train a hospital corpsmanto be an X-ray technician at Bethesda in Reserve community, theNEC cost is $38,500 for that cost. And we are talking about retain-ing that man after we make that capital investri. mt. It seems tome the GI bill benefit is a pretty good bargain under those dollaramounts.

I have a list here of 800 of these type necessary course trainingthat we're going to have to have in the 1990's to maintain our ca-pability, and its a good program. If the committee would likethem, I could provide them for the record.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you.Bob Nolan, the unit that you represent is having a reception to-

night, I believe, and you gave us news the oti.er day that you weregetting ready about a year from nor,, Bob, to leave us. You neverleave us, you're part of it. I just want the record to show how muchwe have enjoyed working with you.

Mr. NOLAN. It has certainly been my pleasure, Mr. Chairman, torepresent my shipmates for the past 22 years in this job. And myjob is elective. I was elected to a 3-year term a year ago September,and I will serve until September 1989. I didn't say I was going toretire, I just don't intend to seek the heavy burden of continuing inthat job past September of 1989.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. You kind of sound like some of us politicians.[Laughter.]Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, if you want me, if there's a groundswell,

you know, I might consider running for that position.Mr. NOLAN. I think once that I have announcad that I have

taken care of it, that I am going to have to leave now because itwould be a little bit different with politics in the Association thanit is in the broad spectrum across the public sector.

To answer your question, if I had to choose my shipmates had tochooseand we discussed this last month at our convention in Vir-ginia Beachthey would also say to change the payment down to alower monthly payment. I think that is the broad provision thatwould affect the most and be most beneficial across the board. Ithink maybe what I should add is the second of the two amend-ments that I addressed here is the very subject that Congressman

46

41

Duncan Hunter was speaking of on the date for the military ca-reerist.

You have to be careful there. I feel that if that is not addressedand resolved, then even the people who are eligible for the benefitdon't believe its a fair bill. It gets a certain amount of bad-mouth-ing around the chief's quarters and first-class' quarters and soforth and drifts on down to the ranking seaman.

The program, to them it seems there is something not quite rightabout it when it has a flaw in it that drops out. We thoughtwe hadthe problem resolved when we got the GI bill with Senator Yarbor-ough in 1966. Then as I said in my testimony, with the All-Volun-teer Force and VEAP and that coming into it, we're right back tosquare one again. I think that its a problem that rates a high prior-ity, although we're probably talking about comparatively few inthe Navy I bet it doesn't affect 10,000 or 15,000 people, but it's animportant factor.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you.Dick?Mr. Richard JOHNSON. Well, as a career force, primarily career

force organization, our members would be most interested in thecareer force equity issues, and those career force equity issues arein providing the education benefits to those people who are forcedto retire after the implementation of the New GI Bill, thus nothaving the opportunity to have their full 10 years and to providethe benefits to those people who are part of that forgotten genera-tion.

It was not intended in your original bill, Mr. Chairman, but thatforgotten generation of servicemember who enlisted between 1977and 1985, who in effect really don't have a GI bill, would like to goback to your original legislation as you envisioned it, and providethose folks an opportunity to enroll in this new program.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I guess most folks do have the VEAP pro-gram, which nobody used. Is that correct? I mean, the VEAP pro-gram was there between 1977 a-id 1985.

Mr. Richard JOHNSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That's the exact argu-ment we offer for justifying their participation in the MontgomeryGI Bill.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, Mr. Partridge?Colonel PARTRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I believe the point that our

people would be most interested in is the transfer of entitlement todependents.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you.Mr. DOWDY. I want to thank all of you very much. I want to

apologize. I had a commitment that I had to be gone for 45 min-utes. But thank you very much for your willingness to be here thismorning.

We would ask the next panel to come forward: Gen. La VernWeber, of the National Guard Association; Col. Ben Catlin, repre-senting the Air Force Association; Gen. William R. Berkman, fromthe Reserve Forces Policy Board; and Col. Ja.nes Rodenberg, repre-senting Col. Judd Lively of the Reserve Officers Association.

Also on this panel will be: Comdi. John Wanamaker, of the Re-tired Officers Association; Mr. Albert Friedrich, of the Navy

47:

42

League; and Chief Alan Obermiller, of the Enlisted Association ofthe National Guard.

Again, we thank you for your testimony, and we have acknowl-edged receipt of your written comments which will be made part ofthe record, and we would again appreciate it if you would staywithin the 5-minute rule.

We would ask that you would proceed in the order in which youwere recognized.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. LAVERN E. WEBER, AUS (RET.), EXECU-TIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THEUNITED STATES

General WEBER. Mr. Chairman, again we are most appreciativefor the opportunity to come before this distinguished committee tospeak to a couple of issues on the subject at hand. Most of thepoints that we have chosen to talk about have been discussed here,so I will make my remarks very brief and tell you that the reportthat I get from the National Guard Bureau is that the Montgomerylaw is a tool for enlistment and retention that is far exceeding theoriginally conceived program.

All the enlistments being for a period of 6 years provides greatstability, and with the quality of individuals that are being broughtinto the Army and the Air National Guard, it has immeasurablyenhanced the readiness of that force.

The majority of the changes in the three resolutions that areunder consideration pertain to the Active Force, and it would besomewhat presumptuous of us in the National Guard Associationto attempt to determine what is good for the active services andwhat isn't so good. So we would only suggest that the Montgomerylaw continue in place and that the active services continue to fine-tune as we will hope to do in the Guard.

I do have two recommendations, however, that we feel we needto further enhance the quality of pe,:ple we are getting in theGuard. That is to expand the program to include coverage for com-munity colleges and advanced degree work; secondly, that we in-clude individuals who cannot participate at the level of a half-timestudent, that it be permitted to cover a shorter period of time forthose individuals.

These are the two changes that we would recommend be provid-ed from the standpoint of the National Guard. That concludes mycomments.

[The prepared statement of General Weber appears on p. 152.]

STATEMENT OF CHIEF ALAN OBERMILLER, CMS (RET.), EXECU-TIVE DIRECTOR, ENLISTED ASSOCIATION OF THE NATIONALGUARD OF THE UNITED STATES

Chief OBERMILLER. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of thecommittee, it is once again my pleasure to appear before you tosubmit testimony concerning the Montgomery GI Bill. On Febru-ary 18 of this year I presented our views on making the New GIBill permanent legislation. Earlier this year I was also .privilegedto accompany Chairman Montgomery on a fact-finding trip to basictraining centers of the services to participate in question-and-

48

43

answer periods with trainees. Two of the main concerns as reasonsfor nonparticipation, as stated by the trainees at that time, were:the amount of pay withheld, which was $100 a month for 12months, on the pay of a basic soldier or sailor or airman or marine;and the limited amount of time permitted to make this importantdecision in the stressful training environment.

Also, another often-stated enhancement of the program is thetransfer of that entitlement to family members.

H.R. 3180 and H.R. 3208 we believe adequately address those ob-stacles to additional educational participation. We have no prefer-ence between the two bills as it relates to stretching out the pay-ment schedule, the language on transferability of entitlement, or inproviding additional time for the decision process.

Turning to H.R. 2950, that bill addresses the Reserve componententitlement under section 2 and points up a recognized need for vo-cational training as well as academic education.

Mr. Chairman, we believe vocational training is also necessary tonational goals of educational excellence and technological superior-ity into the future. America still needs skilled craftsman to manu-facture and design the tools of production, to put ideas into formand projections into reality. We need to continue to encourage vo-cational education as well as academic achievement.

We believe the entitlements under chapter 106 of Title 10 shouldbe identical to those under chapter 30 of Title 38 as far as types oftraining are concerned. We believe, as we have stated, that benefitsshould be expanded to include all phases of academic education, in-cluding advanced degrees. It directly affects readiness in the factthat advanced education in today's world contributes to the mas-tery of complex systems and hardware, and what remains to bedone, in our view, is to maximize the value by covering all forms ofhigher education for our Guard and Reserve citizen-soldiers.

We appreciate your efforts to give us the best educational oppor-tunity possible and also for your strong support of the Guard andReserve soldier and airman and their special needs. Mr. Chairman,I will be happy to answer any questions to the best of my abi'ity.Thank you.

[The wepared statement of Chief Obermiller appears on p. 156.]Mr. DOWDY. Colonel Catlin?

STATEMENT OF COL. BEN S. CATLIN, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR, AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION

Colonel CATLIN. Mr. Chairman, I am Colonel Catlin, from the AirForce Association, and it is a privilege for us to be allowed to testi-fy. Most of the issues have been covered, so I will summarize.

We support changing the monthly payroll deductions to $60 for20 months, extending the opt-out period to 30 days after entry onactive duty, transferability of educational benefits, allowing active-duty members who chose not to enroll in the original program 60days to enroll now, allowing Guard and Reserve members to usetheir benefits for the same programs as active members, and pro-viding prorated benefits to Guard and Reserve members to attendschool on less than a half-time basis.

49.,

44

That concludes my summary. I would be happy to answer anyquestions.

[The prepared statement of Colonel Catlin appears on p. 164.]

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM R. BERKMAN, MILITARY EX-ECUTIVE, RESERVE FORCES POLICY BOARD, OFFICE OF THESECRETARY OF DEFENSE

General BERKMAN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the commit-tee, on behalf of our chairman, the Honorable Will Hill Tankersleyand the other members of the Reserve Forces Policy Board, it is apleasure and an honor to be with you today.

As you know, the Reserve Forces Policy Board is by statute aprincipal policy adviser to the Secretary of Defense on all mattersaffecting the Reserve components. The Board has characterized theMontgomery GI Bill as Nation-strengthening. And indeed it is, andmany of the proposed amendments you are considering today willmake it even more effective.

It is the Board's position that amendments that would expandReserve component coverage to permit vocational, technical, andgraduate education assistance are extremely important and worth-while. They would make the Montgomery GI Bill an even more ef-fective incentive for recruiting and retaining the highly qualifiedyoung men and women into the Selected Reserve Forces of ourNation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of General Berkman appears on p. 165.]

STATEMENT OF LT. COL. JAMES C. RODENBERG, USAF (RET.),LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OFTHE UNITED STATES

Colonel RODENBERG. Mr. Chairman, Colonel Lively was unable tobe here this morning. I am Lt. Col. Jim Rodenberg, and it is a dis-tinct pleasure for me to appear before your subcommittee. I wantto thank you for providing this opportunity for me to represent themany men and women of all the uniformed services who are mem-bers of that Reserve Officers Association. ROA would like to thankthis subcommittee for the actions that it has taken in the past inproviding educational opportunities for all our military personnelboth active and Reserve, and we appreciate having this opportunityto day to comment on the proposed legislative changes to this 1:11-portant program.

ROA has worked with most of you to make the New GI Bill areality. There is every indication that the new Montgomery GI Billis having a positive impact on the number and the quality of re-cruits entering both the active and the Reserve Forcez. I think thathas been well attested to here this morning. We do believe that thelaw can be improved.

The ROA membership endorsed the for =lain improve-ments at our national convention in We have provided somerecommendations to this subcommittee already. We have provi leda copy of the resolution passed in July of this yeor.

In its resolution, the Reserve Officers Association recommendsimprovements in three areas: ROA supports legislative change thatwould permit reservists to use the Montgomery GI Bill for post-

50:.:

45

graduate training. We believe this would attract and retain collegegraduates into the Reserve programs. We support the modificationof the New GI Bill to permit the refund of the member's costs ifthe servicemember due to death or other cogent reasons is unableto use the benefit. This legislative fix is contained in H.R. 3208.

Lastly, ROA believes that on-the-job training, correspondenceschools, and apprenticeships presently under the New GI Bill oractive-duty personnel should be extended to include the Reservecomponent. In addition to improving the program as being more at-tractive, the courses would raise the overall effectiveness of the Re-serve component.

We realize there are several other issues which the committeewill be addressing as they look at the three bills. The ROA nationalstaff has considered the provisions of these bills. However, the As-sociation has not taken an official position on the other provisionscontained in the proposals. We do recommend that this committeework with the uniformed leadership of the services in adopting, re-jecting, and/or modifying these other provisions so that the finallegislative package presented to the Congress will meet the person-nel needs of the separate services, both their active and Reservecomponents.

I want to again thank you for this opportunity to representROA's views. Your continued support of the men and women whoare wearing and who have worn the uniform of this country bothactive and Reserve is deeply appreciated. I will certainly answerany questions that you will have.

[The prepared statement of Reserve Officers Association of theUnited States appears on p. 168.]

STATEMENT OF COMDR. JOHN F. WANAMAKER, DEPUTY DIREC-TOR OF LEGISLATION, THE RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATIONCommander WANAMAKER. Mr. Chairman, members of the com-

mittee, I am Comdr. John Wanamaker, U.S. Navy, (Ret.), thedeputy director of legislative affairs for the Retired Officers Asso-ciation. My purpose today is to provide the committee with our As-sociation's views on the various legislative initiatives being consid-ered to make improvements in the Montgomery GI Bill.

This committee, and especially the members of this subcommit-tee, are to be commended for their earlier actions in this first ses-sion of the 100th Congress by the enactment of Public Law 100-48,which made permanent the Montgomery GI Bill.

Earlier this year, our president, Vice Adm. Thomas Kilcline, U.S.Navy, (Ret.), visited the various military organizations along withrepresentatives of other military associations in a congressionaldelegation to see firsthand the reaction of our young recruits tothis important educational incentive. My comments today arebased upon his observations.

Based on those observations, our Association believes that cer-tain actions could be taken to make an excellent program evenbetter. H.R. 3180 and H.R. 3208 are two bills currently before thiscommittee for consideration. They would modify the reduction-in-pay schedule for those who participate in the Montgomery GI Billprogram.

51

46

First, we believe the $1,200 contribution by a servicemembertoward his or her future education demonstrates a good-faith corn-mitment, and this feature should be maintained. However, the first$100-per-month reduction in pay for some members is excessive. Itis recommended that current law be changed to authorize a partici-pant to spread out the $1,200 contribution payments over thelength of his or her enlistment or length-of-service obligation.

Provision should also' be made to provide the service secretariesthe flexibility to authorize eligibility to those serving on activeduty since the initial effective date of the Montgomery GI Bill andwho originally elected not to participate, allow them to reconsiderenrollment in thet program.

This flexibility could be limited to the requirement that the indi-vidual have obligated service remaining of at least 2 years or thathis or her election be accompanied with an agreement to extendhis or her obligation to complete at least 2 years of service follow-ing such an election.

H.R. 3208 would further authorize a servicemember to transferentitlement of the Montgomery GI Bill to dependents. Recently en-acted legislation significantly reduces the lifetime value of militaryretired pay, and is expected to have a corresponding effect on re-tention. This reduction in retired pay will be especially severe forthose who transition into civilian life at the completion of 20 yearsof military service.

This also is the point that the majority experience the burden ofproviding a college education for their children. It is our firm beliefthat a new incentive will be essential to offset the diminished valueof military retired pay and to facilitate the adjustment to civilianlife after a military career.

Therefore, our Association would support the transferability ofthe Montgomery GI Bill entitlement to a servicemember's depend-ents, but request that an additional restriction be opposed beyondthat contained in H.R. 3208. We believe that a spouse should bemarried to the servicemember for a period of not less than 5 yearscoinciding with active-duty service.

We recommend this transferability be authorized only for thoseelecting to serve a total of not less than 12 years, demonstratingtheir intention to make the military their professional career.

Mr. Chairman, any time a program such as the Veterans' Ad-ministration's educational assistance program is established, the

,expectations of those who provided service in order to receive thosebenefits should be faithfully honored. Subsequently making chang-ing or changing the rules imposing delimiting dates or terminatingprograms making it impossible for an individual to benefit from aprogram in which he expected such benefits should be avoided.

I would like to bring to the committee's attention two situationswhere arbitrary changes to the VA educational assistance pro-grams shattered the expectations of those few involved. As an ex-ample, servicemembers with as much as 20 or more years of servicewho are forced to retire prior to 30 June 1988 are only eligible forthe provisions of chapter 34, the old GI bill, which expires Decem-ber 31, 1989, the delimiting date for that program. This creates aninequity since servicemembers who are not forced to retire untilafter June 30, 1988, earn additional educational entitlements under

52 '

47

the new Montgomery GI Bill. In fact, this delimiting date providesgreater benefits for servicemen with as little as 3 years of servicethan some who have faithfully served their country for 30 or moreyears.

I have attached a four-page summary of this problem along withsuggested solutions to this statement.

Another example of an abrupt change involves those who hadcommitted themselves to military service along with the expecta-tion of receiving chapter 34 VA educational assistance. This is par-ticularly applicable to the 1977 and 1978 classes at the variousmilitary academies. In 1976 the Vietnam-era GI bill was prospec-tively repealed. This adversely affected those service academycadets and midshipmen who had entered the armed services andhad made 7-years active-duty commitments prior to the 1976repeal. In many cases, these commitments were based upon, amongother considerations, the expectation of GI bill eligibility.

While it is quite clear from the legislative history that Congressdid not intend to retroactively exclude any servicemember from theVietnam GI bill, the 1976 repeal inadvertently failed to protect theinterests of the academy cadets and midshipmen.

In the last Congress, the Veterans' Administration submittedlegislation,with the support of this Administration to correct thisinequity. However, for unknown reasons, no action was taken. Ac-cording to the best available data, the cost of restoring eligibility tothe two affected classes would be minimal.

Considering the gross inequities involved and the minimal costs,I would hope that the attached proposed amendment would be in-cluded as a rider to any legislation to make improvements to theMontgomery GI Bill.

This concludes my statement, and I will answer any questions.[The prepared statement of Commander Wanamaker appears on

p. 171.1Mr. DOWDY. Thank you.Mr. Friedrich?

STATEMENT OF ALBERT H. FRIEDRICH, PAST NATIONALPRESIDENT, NAVY LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. FRIEDRICH. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, theNavy League of the United States has strongly supported theMontgomery GI Bill from its inception. We are pleased to appearbefore this committee to comment on the resolutions proposed tofine tune certain features of this outstanding legislation. As amember and past national president of the Navy League, I am heretoday representing more than 62,000 Americans dedicated to thesupport of a strong military which, in turn, depends on the avail-ability and recruitment of our Nation's young men and women.

I should point out that unlike other military support organiza-tions, no Navy League members is on active duty with any branchof the armed services and more than 50 percent of our membershave never served in the Armed Forces. Navy Leaguers are ordi-nary citizens from all walks of life who are convinced that thisNation needs a strong and viable Navy, Marine Corps, CoastGuard, and Merchant Marine.

5a

48

The Navy League is also dedicated to ensuring that the youth ofour Nation are given every opportunity to serve their country andto continue their education.

Since the Montgomery GI Bill was enacted, it has impacted therecruiting, retention, and personnel quality or the Armed Forces ina very positive manner. Reports received by the Navy League indi-cate that this legislation has moze than proved its worth duringthe short time that it has been the law of the land. As is the casewith many resolutions, the final product is never perfect. We arehere today to consider possible improvements to the Moi-tgomeryGI Bill.

In regard to H.R. 2950, the Navy League opposes including flighttraining as an approved educational program under the bill. In ouropinion, neither the objectives nor the spirit of providing readjust-ment benefits would be met by including flight training under theMontgomeryGI Bill.

H.R. 3180 is divided into three areas, which I would like to coverindividually. This bill would extend to the recruit the opportunityto disenroll in the program at the end of the recruit's basic train-ing. The Navy League opposes Ufa provision. The Navy Leagueand the Navy fully support the intent of the law of automaticallyenrolling a member unless an election to disenroll is made uponentry into active duty. The Navy is placing greater emphasis onhaving its recruits fully inforined of the educational benefits priorto reporting for active duty, so that the burden of making this im-portant decision in such a short time is removed and sufficienttime is permitted for full consideration of the benefits to be re-ceived.

Section 2 of H.R. 3180 addresses the pay deduction issue. The re-cruit receives approximately $524 per month in basic pay, and the$100 monthly educational deduction, which represents nearly 20percent of the recruit's monthly pay, is a very sizeable sum. TheNavy League certainly supports reducing the monthly deductions.But we would prefer to see the payments formula changed to $60per month for 20 months with no other options being offered,thereby simplifying the decision process.

The issue of transferability is addressed in section 3 of H.R. 3180.It would seem more reasonable to offer transferability earlier tothe servicemember upon completing 10 years of active duty and re-maining on active duty. This would serve as a retention tool to sup-plement the selective re-enlistment bonus already in existence.

Let me now move to some of the issues contained within H.R.3208. The Navy League's position on allowing the recruit to havethe required $1,200 payment extended over a greater period of timehas been presented. Section 3 of H.R. 3208 proposes to allow therecruit 60 days to decide on enrollment or disenrollment. Thissame issue has been addressed in relation to H.R. 3180, which wehave opposed, and instead support the automatic enrollment ascontained in the law.

Section 3 of H.R. 3208, which provides for a one-time 60-daywindow to enroll those servicemembers who disenrolled previously,the Navy League supports this second-chance provision. The issueof transferability in H.R. 3208 is addressed in the portion of mystatement related to H.R. 3180. The final portion of H.R. 3208, sec-

54

tion 5, would provide a compensation payment in the event of aneligible serviceman's death or disability. The Navy League supportsincluding the language of section 5` in whatever legislation emergesfrom this subcommittee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to testi-fy before this subcommittee on behalf of the Navy League of theUnited States.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Friedrich appears on p. 185.jMr. DOWDY. We thank all of you for your testimony.Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief.Mr. Chairman, I would also like to tha. 'E our panelists for being

here today and testifying through their 1; nch hour. They did haveto wait around. But the information the / have given us certainlywill be helpful.

Most of you at that table are very familiar with this educationalbenefit, and you helped us pass it. I think the Navy League, we areglad to see you testifying and doing research on these issues. I amsure you have been here before, but we especially want to welcomeyou to this other group that I personally know and to say to theNavy League that we are glad that you are involved.

I don't have any questions, Mr. Chairman, but I do want tothank these distinguished Americans for coming up here today andtaking their time to give us their ideas.

Mr. DOWDY. Thank you.Mr. Smith?Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I want to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman, and

we do thank you for your very fine comments and for the kind ofinput that it will provide us when we are crafting this legislation. Ido have two very brief questions.

Commander WanamAer, you point out on page 5, and you saidit in your oral comments, that you believe that a spouse should bemarried to a servicemember for a period not less than 5 years coin-ciding with active duty. What is the rationale behind that?

Commander WANAMAKER. I think to avoid a woman marryinglet's just say a person; It could be either way aroundmarrying aservicemember just in order to be eligible for the benefits, thatperson should have some kind of a commitment along with themember's service, and they should be coinciding. I just don't thinka person outside of the service should marry a person just for theGI benefits without any obligation at all. I feel that coincidingyears of marriage would be appropriate.

Mr. Sham of New Jersey. Mr. Friedrich, you point out the 10years of active duty in order to transfer the benefit and then re-maining on active duty, I'm not sure if the serviceman were to ter-minate his service, would the benefit also be terminate a? Mustthey remain on active duty?

Mr. FRIEDRICH. They must remain on active duty.Mr. Swim of New Jersey. To transfer the benefit? So if they did

terminate their service, they would then lose the benefit?Mr. FRIEDRICH. Yes, they must stay in the service; and it would

help the retention program.Mr. Swim of New Jersey. What I am suggesting, though, is that

unlike the 20 years, which is a given, if they attain the transfer-

5 0 r; .

50

ability that kicks in, the suggestion from your organization is thatat 10 years it kicks in provided that they stay on active duty, but ifthey go off active duty they are no longer eligible and the benefitterminates. Is that correct?

Mr. FRIEDRICH. If they stay in service, then that money becomesavailable to them and they can make use of it without having towait until they get out of service as a 20-year veteran. The benefitdoes not terminate.

Mr. Swim of New Jersey. Okay. I am just trying to clarify so Iknow exactly what the suggestion is. Thank you.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. General Weber, this would probably be abetter question for the chiefs. But do you know if the GI bill isworking as a retention factor on re-enlistment in the NationalGuard.

General WEBER. There is no question that the reports we get in-dicate that it has enhanced re-enlistment significantly, up abovethe 60 percent level.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. It has improved enlistments. There was someconcern that in some cases the GI bill might force people out of theservice. But I would think in the National Guard and Reserve itcould be a retention factor. But the figures you have, it is increas-ing the re-enlistments?

General WEBER. Very definitely, Mr. Chairman.Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you.Mr. DOWDY. Let me ask one question, and any of you may want

to comment. We have heard some comments today expressed aboutextending the period during which a servicemember makes the de-cision regarding his or her participation in the Montgomery GIBill, extending the period of time after he or she arrives at basictraining. Some think that by doing that we would be making it anopt-out program: rather than an opt-in program.

In my opinion, rather than extending the amount of time ayoung person has after he or she arrives at basic training, another2 or 3 weeks or whatever, that we would be better served by put-ting more emphasis on the time before he or she joins. We need toensure that recruiters are giving the young people they meet, aswell as their parents and their spouses, all the information aboutthe program so that basically this decision is made prior to arrivalat basic training. Any of you want to comment on this proposedchange?

Chief OBERMILLER. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would like to make acomment on that. I think that ideally that decision is best madeprior to going to basic training. I am not sure there is any insur-ance that that would happen. Based on that concern, I think, be-cause of what the recruits have told us about the stress involved inbasic training, that the first 2 or 3 or first week of training is notime to make that important decision. If it can't be done ahead oftime, I would say we need that 30 days in order to make a good,solid deliberation and a choice.

General WEBER. Mr. Chairman, we feel, for the Army and theAir National Guard, that this choice is a part or a condition of en-listment, that the recruiters are the folks that have all the answersthat have been discussed here this morning. They have been spe-

56

51

daily trained to do that, and that decision should be made concur-rently with the commitment to enlist.

Colonel RODENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I of course was on that triplast spring, as many of you were, and heard the concerns expressedby the young people. I would have to say that ROA has a concernthat if the decision period for remaining in the program is ex-tendedafter all we re trying to keep or get as many people toremain in the program as possibleif you extend it past that firstpay period, a lot of them, having that pay, are going to have a hardtime giving it up.

I had some problems, certainly, with their making a decisionafter only 1 and 2 and perhaps 3 days being there, a traumatic ex-perience in itself. A decision still has to be made, and I don't carewhether they have all the information or not, that's asking a lot ofthem. But when you go much beyond the 14 days, they get thatfirst paycheck and it's going to be a lot tougher.

Commander WANAMARER. I would like to make a little comment.I don't think that the decision process as it currently is now is cor-rect. In the first place, the guy is already committed. When he is inboot camp, he's already committed, and you've got him for 2 yearsanyway.

So the emphasis on the selling of the program first, the promisesmade by the recruiter, is fine. That should be done. And then heshould be able to make the education election decision anytime aslong as he provides that service. If he wants to make it the last dayof his career, fine. If he wants to make it 2 years from then, or, ifhe wants to extend for 2 additional years for additional service andmaim that decision, fine too. I would say we have a better guy re-enlisting at the end of his second year for 2 additional years andmaking that decision than it would be to do it the first day hecomes into the military or into boot camp.

Mr. DOWDY. I thank all of you very much for participating thismorning, and we will stay in touch with you as we move next yearfor any revisions.

Mr. DOWDY. Our final panel today includes representatives ofvarious veterans organizations. We want to thank them for theirpatience. We have Lt. Col. David Passamaneck, and the colonel isrepresenting AMVETS; Mr. Frank DeGeorge, representing the Par-alyzed Veterans of America; and Mr. James Magill testifying onbehalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

We are happy to have all of you here with us today. If you wouldproceed, Colonel, and then follow in the order in which I have in-troduced you.

STATEMENT OF LT. COL. DAVID J. PASSAMANECK, USA (RET.),NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMVETS

Colonel PASSABIANECR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.AMVETS is pleased to have this opportunity to appear at this

review of the Montgomery GI Bill and comment on the suggestedlegislation, H.R. 2950, H.R. 3208, and H.R. 3180. AMVETS was theonly major veterans organizationand I will probably get an argu-ment about this, but we can handle that some other way; maybeFrank will give me an argumentbut we think we were the only

.57

52

major veterans organization to unequivocally support this programin its original form as H.R. 1400, the 98th Congress, which was en-acted into law as Title VII, Public Law 98-525.

We recognized from the beginning that this program would havea tremendously beneficial effect on both recruitment for the ArmedForces and restoration of veterans to civilian life. We specificallydid not object to the VA funding the bulk of the costs of the pro-gram even though it is also a recruiting incentive, at least in itsinitial impact.

By the way, I might add that there was a little bit of objection atthat time from some of our sister organizations regarding thisfunding.

The program has proven itself to be one of the most successfulenacted in the post-Vietnam era. As the only major veterans orga-nization whose ranks are open to post-Vietnam veterans generally,we in AMVETS take special pleasure in commending this historiccontribution made possible by the persistent leadership of Chair-mazim1VNITmdrlomery.

is pleased to support the extension of educational as-sistance to flight training in courses accredited by the FAAand Imight add, to those veterans already having private pilots li-censesand applicable State authorities as provided by H.R. 2950,introduced by you, Mr. Chairman.

Both H.R. 3180, introduced by Mr. Smith of New Jersey, who Iam pleased to see is here with us, and H.R. 3208, introduced by Mr.Jontz, propose to amend the Montgomery GI Bill so as to more eq-uitably apply the benefits provided by the program and remove ex-isting requirements for participation in the program, which inmany cases have proved to be disincentives.

AMVETS supports the provisions generally of both H.R. 3208and H.R. 3180 for transfer of the educational entitlement or rightof survivorship for the member's children or spouse for the purposeof participation in the program. We believe that H.R. 3208 is alittle bit more comprehensive and is therefore perhaps a little bitmore preferable to H.R. 3180. However, we do not subscribe to thetransformation of such survivorship into what amounts, to a supple-mental life insurance program as provided in H.R. 3208. As westated to this subcommittee on August 6, 1987, and I will quote,"The guidelines set forth in chapter 35 of Title 38, United StatesCode, particularly in section 1701, should provide comparable crite-ria for entitlement to recovery of a member's contribution to theMontgomery GI Bill program. We specifically support use of thefunds thus made available to the survivors of 100 percent service-connected disabled veterans and those missing in action or heldprisoner in accordance with section 1701 of Title 38, United StatesCode."

Paying the unredeemed contribution to the Montgomery GI Billprogram to parents of a deceased member would appear to bebeyond the intended scope of the program.

In addition to the eligibility criteria set forth in chapter 35 ofTitle 38, United States Code, we would favor payment of a veter-an's unredeemed contribution to the Montgomery GI Bill programto survivors for educational purposes if the veteran dies during theperiod of eligibility.

58

53

We are pleased that both H.R. 3208 and H.R. 3180 appear to beconsistent with that testimony. Consequently, with the exception ofrefund of the member's contribution in the event o' his incapacityto take advantage of the program as provided in H.R. 3208,AMVETS would not favor any payments to survivors for otherthan educational purposes or to the parents in any event. Thankyou very much.

[The prepared statement of Colonel Passamaneck appears on p.188.]

STATEMENT OF FRANK R. DE GEORGE, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATIVEDIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

Mr. DEGEORGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.At the onset, PVA would like to express its sincerest congratula-

tions to you, this subcommittee, and especially to the cbRirman ofthe full committee and author of this new education program, theHonorable G. V. Sonny Montgomery for the successful passage andenactment of the Gr bill.

The President's signature of the law marked the culmination ofover 8 years of dedication and hard work on your part to convincethe Congress and the Administration of what we believe was self-evident.

We also believe it is difficult at this time to adequately grade theimplementation of the program based on only 4 months of full op-eration. Predecessor to the Montgomery GI Bill, the New GI Bill,enacted in 1985, as this subcommittee well knows, was only a tem-porary or pilot program. As such, utilizing cumulative participationrates as indicators of the quality of the implementation of the pro-gram from 1985 to the present might be somewhat clouded by thefact that the New GI Bill, as any new program, had to undergo thestresses and strains of startup and certain reluctance in implemen-tation on the part of the service branches due to the perceived tem-porary nature of the program.

There is evidence that the GI bill in its present form is workingby the fact, as we understand, of the 75 percent rate of increase inenlistments over a 61 percent rate during the period 1985 to 1987.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that PVA has reserva-tions, has recommendations, is in opposition and is supportive ofvarious elements of the pieces of legislation that are being present-ed here today. In the interest of time, I would ask your indulgenceas I refer you to our testimony and therefore submit our writtenstatement for the record. In the meantime, we want to thank youfor all of your efforts and especially to the authors of the legisla-tion that is being presented, for your continued interest and con-cern, whether or not we agree or disagree. Thank you very much,Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeGeorge appears on p. 192.]

59

54

STATEMENT OF JAMES N. MAGILL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGIS-LATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THEUNITED STATES

Mr. MAGILL. Thank you, sir, for the privilege )f appearing beforeyour subcommittee to present the views of the Veterans of ForeignWars.

In previous testimony before this subcommittee, the VFW hasstated that this program is dollar for a dollar the most cost-effec-tive means of recruitment now in existence. We are also convincedthe program is across the board the best educational incentive theDepartment of Defense has to offer. Furthermore, this educationalbenefit program is paying for itself by improving the recruitingquality and reducing turnover in personnel.

Earlier this year the VFW joined a group and went to, I believeit was, four basic training camps- to discuss the educational pro-gram with the recruits there. One of the things that we were toldrepeatedly was that those who had elected not to participate in theeducation program, had they been given more time to make a deci-sion, would have wanted to take part in it.

While both bills before us today, H.R. 3180 and H.R. 3208, pro-vide for extension time, we believe that H.R. 3208 provides for amore flexible time period and at the same time would still allowthat recruit, when he comes in, he can opt to participate at thatpoint instead of having to wait. He then can get into the programright off the bat. So we do support extension of the time to come upwith a decision.

It also became apparent to us that the contribution schedule of$100 a month for 12 months was high. The recruits wanted a lowerfee over a longer period. Again, both the bills call for extension ofthat payment schedule with a lower rate. Either one would be ac-ceptable to us. So we would leave it up to the wisdom of the Con-gress or the branches, whichever one they feel would benefit themthe most.

Also, both bills provide for a transfer of entitlement to depend-ents. The VFW has historically opposed a transferability provisionbecause we view education as a readjustment program, and we arealso concerned that this would reduce the pool of eligibles down theroad, If an individual goes in now and can transfer that benefit toanother, say to a child, then that would not be an incentive forthat child to come into the military at a later date. However, inlight of the fact that the Montgomery GI Bill is a contributory pro-gram and is also a proven retention tiol for the military, we willnot oppose the transfer.

Finally, H.R. 2950, introduced by you, would amend the Mont-gomery GI Bill so as to allow flight training. As you know, flighttraining was at one time available to Vietnam veterans who en-rolled in the Vietnam-era GI bill but was eliminated as a course ofstudy.

Inasmuch as the Vietnam-era GI bill is still a current program,the VFW does not believe it would be proper to authorize a particu-lar program to peacetime veterans while at the same time denyingit to a wartime veteran. For this reason the VFW at this timecannot support H.R. 2950.

GO

55

This concludes my statement, and I will be happy to respond toquestions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Magill appears on p. 199.]Mr. DOWDY. I thank each of you very much.Mr. Chairman?Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I want to publicly thank the veterans organizations that are here

today for, back several years ago, of coming in and supporting theGI bill. With your support we were able to move ahead with thislegislation, and if you would have thrown up doubts or stumblingblocks, I believe, Mr. Chairman, we would have had many moreproblems than we had with this educational benefit.

I want to thank you today for 3-nur testimony, for your pros andcons that you have mentioned ana what you do support and whatyou don't support in the different pieces of legislation introduced,which we need to know.

Dave, ou mentioned about some veterans organizations, not the, could have been concerned about the cost of this pro-

gram when it was implemented. But we still believeand I as thechairman of the committee, and I am sure that I can speak forWayne and Christhat this is a readjustment program in the longrun. What it is going to help that we never really get around to isthese young Amerimns are going to be much better citizens,they're going to make more money, they're going to pay moretaxes, and they're going to move this countrr3efeoarward so that wecan be a democracy for another 100 years because we have thebrains, the know-how of these young men and women that arecoming along.

So I feel very strongly that it is still a readjustment program andthe Veterans Administration will pay part of the cost. It seemsright now, Mr. Chairman, that the $100 a month has created quitea bit of funding and it's going to be 3 or 4 years before this legisla-tion will really be a cost to the taxpayers.

So we are on pretty firm ground as far as finances are concerned,and in this budge. :esolution it was not considered for fiscal yeal1988 as a cost factor because of the money coming in, and I thinkthe same thing will prevail probably into 1989 because this $100 amonth is mounting up and there is money that is in the generalfund that came from this legislation.

So we've got to have the veterans organizations onboard on thislegislation. You are on board, and thank you for being here andmaking this testimony.

Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Smith?Mr. Smrrx of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I want to thank the three gentlemen for their presentations. I

note, Mr. DeGeorge, that you come out in the presentation as beingagainst compensation payments, or at least having real reserva-tions there. I think you raise some very interesting points thatneed to be considered by the committee as to how disabled is dis-abled before that benefit is transferred. Perhaps you would want tospeak to that.

Mr. DEGEORGE. We are not opposed to the compensation. In fact,we're in favor of the compensation payment, Mr. Smith. But we

56

are concerned about how those compensation payments will be de-termined based on disability, and we alert you to our point of viewin that area because this committee and the full committee haveprovided programs to help rehabilitate disabled veterans that atone time were not available, that we again point to that areawhere a person can become involved and not placed on the disabil-ity roll where he could not be supported or she could not be sup-ported.

We are able to overcome those kinds of areas of concern. Sospinal cord injury itself is a very catastrophic disability. We wouldnot want the Veterans' Administration to consider spinal cordinjury as providing authority for making compensation payment.And that's where we allude to comatose as being an area wherethey could relate to making payment. In that case the paymentwould go, as we pointed out, to the legal guardian. Therefore, wewould be able to support that area of concern.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The PVA would be looking for a strictinterpretation of disability?

Mr. DEGEORGE. I think that is true, and we would alert you alsoto this also because of the possibility of certain abuses are over-looked or not the proper considerations being provided for pay-ment.

Mr. Swim of New Jersey. On the issue of transferability, theVFW and PVA, although the VFW indicates that you will notoppose it, you do make an interesting point and raise an interest-ing objection regarding the reduction in the pool of eligibles forfuture military service. I think the committee does have to look atthat very carefully.

Perhaps the flip side of that is that those children who have ben-efited may, if they are a thinking family, want that benefit also toaccrue to their children. But it does raise an interesting point thatwill be looked at by the committee. Perhaps you would want tocomment.

Colonel PASSAMANECK. If I may, Mr. Smith?Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes.Colonel PASSAMANECK. We had considered that situation or that

circumstance, and we sort of took the pessimist's point of view. Wewould like to believe that the children, let's say, of a veteran whoobtained their education by means of this eligibility might feel thatit would give them pleasure or pride by returning that favor thatthey had received by perhaps participating in military service ontheir own without the incentive of necessarily getting more educa-tion benefits.

In other words, we think this might set a very healthy examplefor the children of service people and they may say, "Hey, well, Igot all my education through these people, now maybe they needsome officers or whatever they need, and I'm going to join up." Imean, we hope that it will have that effect.

Mr. Swim of New Jersey. Mr. DeGeorge?Mr. DEGEORGE. Mr. Smith, regarding transferability, PVA is to-

tally opposed to this premise. As Chairman Montgomery pointedout earlier, the GI bill is a readjustment benefit, to the veteran andthe people serving in the military, and we wish that it would be

62

57

considered as such in total so that we don't have the GI bill break-ing down and not being provided as intended.

As we pointed out in our testimony, our written statement, thereare other social and economic approaches and social benefits andprograms for families to pursue for their yoimg ones to pursuetheir own education.

It's not in our statement, so I will make a personal observation. Idon't hold my organization to it. But I wonder what happens withthe work ethic of the individual young person finding their ownway to fmd their own education. While we can support themthrough the GI bill and other programs, there is a certain amountof concern that the young person pursue their own initiative.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Would the chairman yield?Mr. DOWDY. Surely.Mr. MONTGOMERY. You have to be careful what you say around

here. These witnesses listen.[Laughter.]Mr. MONTGOMERY. I agree, and that's what I said: it's a readjust-

ment program.But also in the original bill that had the transferability clause in

it, Mr. Chairman, we had in the bill where if the military imple-mented it and it would be optional to the military if they wanted toimplement transferability. They also would have to pay it and itwould have to come out of the Defense Department funding. So wewere watching that, that the Veterans' Administration itselfmainly would fund what we thought was readjustment, and theextra benefits such as the kickers that are now in this bill, that hasto be paid by the military.

Mr. DEGEORGE. I would appreciate what you're saying, sir, but Iwill have to go back to our organization's original premise of read-justment benefits. That is our major concern. And we do have aconcern of how, if it were implemented, how it would be funded,whether it be DOD or the VA. That becomes another major con-cern.

Mr. DOWDY. One final comment. We've talked about refunds ofthe basic pay reduction, that it should be made availablesomehave said thatunder the Montgomery GI Bill. I personally feelthat a cash payment should be made only in the event of a death ofa participant. We have already conducted some hearings beforethis subcommittee. We plan to start doing something next year tocover events such as that which occurred on the U.S.S. Stark thissummer or under very narrow circumstances along the lines ofthat which the PVA has set forth in your written testimony.

We want to thank all of you for appearing before us this morn-ing. Thank you for your patience, coming at the end as you did.Thank you very much.

Mr. DOWDY. There being no further witnesses, we stand ad-journed until tomorrow morning at 9:30.

[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to re-convene at 9:30 a.m,, on Thursday, October 15, 1987.]

63

THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL

Thursday, October 15, 1987

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING

AND EMPLOYMENT,COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Wayne Dowdy (chairmanof the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Montgomery, Dowdy, Jontz, Evans, andSmith of New Jersey.

OPENING STATEMENT 01 -40N. WAYNE DOWDY, CHAIRMAN,SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT

Mr. DOWDY. The Subcommittee on Education, Training and Em-ployment will come to order.

I want to welcome all of you to the second day of hearings re-garding the implementation and the effectiveness of the Montgom-ery GI Bill. We are focusing on three bills, H.R. 2950, H.R. 3180and H.R. 3208.

The first of them would authorize those individuals with eligibil-ity under the Montgomery GI Bill to pursue flight training undercertain restrictions.

Mr. Chris Smith of New Jersey, the ranking minority member ofthe subcommittee, has introduced H.R. 3180 in August, and H.R.3208 was introduced on August 7 by another outstanding memberof our subcommittee, Jim Jontz of Indianz-.. Both of these billswould amend chapter 30 of Title 38, United States Code.

In the letter of invitation I requested comments on these threebills. I also invited witnesses to discuss additional amendments, ifany, which they think would improve the effectiveness of the Mont-gomery GI Bill. As I mentioned yesterday, it is my personal -view,based on visits we have made tp service training bases, that theMontgomery GI Bill is working, read working very well. According-ly, we should give a lot of deliberate thought to any significantchanges we may want to make in this program. Nevertheless, thisis a good opportunity to begin discussions and reviewing the pro-posals before us.

We will be hearing from many witnesses today, and we will re-quest that all witnesses abide by the 5-minute rule. Most of you areaware of it. but when the red light on the table is lighted, that sig-nifies that the 5 minutes are up.

(59)

79-871 0 - 88 - 3 64

60

Written questions may be submitted to our witnesses followingthe hearings. And without objection, the questions and written re-sponses will be included in the hearing record.

Also, the hearing record will remain open for 10 days for addi-tional statements and information.

Before we call on our first witness, I would like to recognize thechairman of the full cvnmittee, my distinguished colleague fromMississippi and my good friend, the author of the excellent pro-gram we are reviewing today, the Honorable G.V. (Sonny) Mont-gomery. Mr. Chairman?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G. V. (SONNY) MONTGOMERY,CHAIRMAN, FULL COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I thought we had excellent hearings yesterday, a lot of interest

in the GI bill, and a lot of suggestions of changes. But it was after-all, Mr. Chairman, to imprc.. ze the bill. Everyone seemed to be verysatisfied with the way the implementation has gone. And as I saidyesterday, and it applies today, there are a number of people inthis room who will testify who were great supporters of the GI billto make it permanent legislation. And I want to go on the recordand thank you, those that will testify today, that gave us their sup-port and made it possible that we are where we are looking at im-provements of the GI bill.

And we have the Veterans' Administration that administers itworking with the military. And I think Mr. Vogel will say, Mr.Chairman, that he has terrific cooperation from the Defense De-partment. You know, you pass these bills, and then sometimes it ishard to put them in effect and get to the people that you want tohelp. But it seems to be that the VA and the Defense Departmentare working very well in setting up and seeing that those peoplewho request to tome under the GI bill, including the ReserveForces are able to do so.

As I said yesterday, I think we ought to go slow, Mr. Chairman,before we make any major changes, to give this legislation achance to settle down a little more and be sure we are doing theright thing. And thank you for this opportunity.

Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The rankingminority member, my friend Chris Smith of New Jersey.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would say in the opening, this is daytwo of what has turned out to be a very good hearing. A lot of inci-sive testimony has been provided to the committee. And I look for-ward to our witnesses who will be addressing us in a moment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. DOWDY. Also, the author of H.R. 3208, our friend Jim Jontz

from Indiana.Mr. Jorrrz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, my appreciation

for your willingness to conduct this very thorough hearing. And Iwant to associate myself with the remarks of our full committeechairman, Chairman Montgomery, and his approach to this issue,and thank the witnesses in advance for their good testimony.

Mr. DOWDY. All right. Our first witness this morning will be Mr.R. J. Vogel who is Chief Benefits Director of the Veterans' Admin-

65t

61

istration. Mr. Vogel is accompanied by Dr. Dennis Wyant, Directorof the Vocational Rehabilitation and Education Service and Mr.James Kane, Assistant General Counsel.

It is a pleasure to see all of you this morning. Mr. Vogel, wewould like for you to proceed.

STATEMENT OF R. J. VOGEL, CHIEF BENEFITS DIRECTOR, VET-ERANS ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY: DR. DENNIS R.WYANT, DIRECTOR, VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND EDU-CATION SERVICE; AND JAMES P. KANE, ASgiSTANT GENERALCOUNSEL

Mr. VOGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.I would like to read a brief summary statement and ask that my

full statement be placed in the record.Mr. DOWDY. Without objection.Mr. VOGEL. I appreciate the opportunity to provide information

on the implementation of the Montgomery GI Bill and to commenton three pending bills.

In the active duty program, 468 individuals have received train-ing through October 6, 1987. The DOD-wide participation rate forthe program through August was 61 percent. Among the individualservices, the Army had the highest participation rate, 78.6 percent.We are anticipating 19,400 trainees in fiscal year 1988 leading upto 242,000 trainees in fiscal year 1993 with the program continuingto grow into the future.

Under the Reserve program, chapter 106, close to 66,000 reserv-ists received training through the end of September. The Army Na-tional Guard had the largest number, 27,036. We are projecting147,000 for fiscal year 1988 with 226,400 trainees projected for 1990.

Chapter 30 claims processing is centralized in our St. Louis Re-gional Office. It is currently using an interim computer systemuntil the TARGET system is available. Installation of TARGET hastaken longer than we anticipated due to chapter 30's complexity.

Along with centralization, we are going to test an optical disksystem starting in about 2 months. This test will help us determinethe feasibility of an automated filing system as opposed to our cur-rent paper claims folder system.

Chapter 106 claims are handled by all VA regional offices. Cur-rently they are using an interim system on TARGET for authoriz-ing benefit payments. A weekly data exchange with the Depart-ment of Defense identifies individuals no longer eligible for bene-fits and those who again become eligible.

We have had excellent cooperation from the Department of De-fense with respect to the military service departments. It is trulywhat we consider a very successful effort caused by large measureby the dedication of the individuals involved in the program.

I would now like to turn to three pending bills. H.R. 2950 wouldamend the Montgomery GI Bill to permit flight training. We areopposed to this bill based upon our experience with flight trainingunder the regular chapter 34 program. Under that program wefound that flight training served goals that were more recreationaland avocational than employment oriented.

6*(6

62

H.R. 3180 is the next bill. As to the pay reduction provisions, weprefer $100 a month reduction for 12 months. We favor lengthen-ing the time for recruits' election not to participate in a programbut we defer to DOD on the transferability issue.

H.R. 3208 is the final bill. We don't favor allowing service-members to decide how much their deduction will be. As with theother bill, we defer to DOD on transferability.

Finally, we think the compensation in lieu of education benefitprovision portion of this bill is a little too loosely worded, but wewould support it with DOD's modifications.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I'd be pleased to re-spond to any questions you or members of the subcommittee mayhave.

e prepared statement of Mr. Vogel appears on p. 216.]Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Vogel.Initially we were told that there were some problems with the

implementation of chapter 106, the Guard and Reserve component.Have these problems been as great as they were anticipated to be?Have any difficulties been taken care of?

Mr. VoGEL. We '4)lieve we are on the road to resolution. Just thesheer number of deserve units reporting data and the number oftrainees causes a little bit of difficulty with determining eligibility.But the Department of Defense has a Defense Manpower DataCenter in California, and we now receive on a weekly basis a com-puter linked update on eligibles. What could be a thorny problemis on its way to resolution. We have very few cases, comparativ.:Ay.that still need resolution as to eligibility. We thiak the implemen-tation has been successful.

Mr. DOWDY. One final question regarding your comments onflight training: Two years ago the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Asso-ciation testified before this subcommittee. At this hearing the wit-ness said the following in his statement. "The United States des-perately needs to train commercially qualified pilots to fill a grow-ing demand for professional pilot services. Student pilot starts havedropped 30 percent. Commercial pilot certificates issued havedropped 58 percent. This makes it doubtful that we will attain ourgoal for required professional pilots by the year 1995." That was astatement of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots .Association.

In view of this statement, I have two questions: Don't you thinkthat flight training would be a more useful benefit than it was 10years ago? Has not the situation changed in light of this informa-tion from that which existed 10 years ago?

And then secondly, would you make any suggestions as to howthis type of training could be made available under the program sothat it is restricted narrowly to the training of commercial pilotsand would not be available as a hobby or an avocation as you havestated in your testimony?.

Mr. VoGEL. Our experience with the flight training in the chap-ter 34 GI bill was that it was avocational and a hobby pursuit morethan anything else. The General Accounting Office did a studysome 8 years ago which said that only about 16 percent of thosewho ever trained in the commercial pilot training programs underthe GI bill were employed in the field of aviation. About $490.8 mil-lion was paid, and only about 2 percent of all who trained were in-

67

sr

63

flight trainees. About $490.8 million for 2 percent of the traineeswith about s 16 percent employment.

The occupational outlook for pilots in the future shows some sig-nificant job opportunities but not in large numbers. I am not surewhat the prospect is for the future on that, whether or not we willindeed have a shortage.

In administering flight training under chapter 34, the onlycourses, of course, that could be approved were those which werecommercial in nature. You couldn't get a private pilot's license,clearly. You had to have a second class medical certificate topursue courses from commercial pilot through multi-engine andflight instructor and those programs.

So, anybody pursuing commercial flight training was obligated toidentify that as a vocational goal. How to get a claimant to indicatewhether he or she actually Intended to use the training for com-mercial purposes when the only goals approved were commercialwould seem to be a redundancy. As with training in a lot of otherfields, accounting or agriculture and other programs under the GIbill, students tram with the prospect of employment in those fields.And that I think would probably be true for the flight training as

Our experience has been that a lot of mona,y was expended andwith comparatively little success in obtaining flight related employ-ment.

Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman?Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Vogel, thank you for being here today and fbr your coopera-

tion on implementing this new legislation that comes through yourdepartment. I also want to congratulate Dr. Dennis Wyant for thework he has done. As I understand it, this is his department andhe has the responsibility at the Veterans' Administration to workwith the military department to see that these persons are enrolledin the GI billand Mr. Kane, as the Assistant General Counsel, foryour cooperation.

Dennis, what are some of the problems that you are seeing now?And maybe you might want to comment on the cooperation which Imentioned earlier from the Defense Department.

Dr. WYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Basically the problems that we have had in the past had been

with the 106 program when the program was new. The most signif-icant problem that we saw was that r.,ervists were being signedup without a full 6-year contract. Now that that is behind us, that'sout.

The other thingMr..MONTGOMERY. Explain the 106.Dr. WYANT. I'm sorry, the chapter 106 reservists program. As

you know, a reservist had to have a full 6-year contract to get intothe program. And, many who were on Reserve status were signedup and getting a NOBE, a Notice of Basic Eligibility when theyreally weren't eligible at that point. So, it has taken some time toseparate those out from the ones who did meet the criteria for theprogram.

Another thing that we are thinking now that is really helping usis that if the Notice of Basic Eligibility is up to 120 days old, we are

68

64

accepting it at face value. It doesn't have to be registered with theDMDC in Californiawe go ahead and process the person. Thathad been held up some in the past and creating some overpaymentissues.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let me make a point there. By lawwell, I'mnot going to say by law.

Are you saying that if they complete their basic training after 3monthsthe reserviststhat you are implementing their applica-tions and not waiting on the 180 days?

Dr. WYANT. No, sir. This would be after they met the criteria forthe 180 days.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, that was one of the suggestions yester-day that that 180 days be shortened because some are finishingafter 3 months and they have to wait for another 3 months in theReserves before their application will be processed by you.

Would you have any problems if we move that date back?Dr. WYANT. The VA doe3 not have a position on that. We would

defer to the Defense Department on that and would administer inwhichever way you, as the Committee and the Defense Depart-ment, see fit on that. We ha7e no problem with that.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Go ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt you.Dr. WYANT. Well, that was basically the main issue. And now

that we do have have this nationwide TARGET system within allof our regional offices, we can pull up from the DMDC a personnelscreen and actually check on the eligibility of each of these reserv-ists which will really, I think, shortcut some of the issues and getservice to the reservists faster than in the past. That has been themain issue. And as you heard Mr. Vogel say, there have been a lotpeople working very hard on this issue over the last year or so.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, Mr. Vogel made the statement to meearlier that this is probably the best cooperation that they havehad in his dealings with the military, between the military and theVA on making this GI bill work. Is that correct, Mr. Vogel?

Mr. VOGEL. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I think any time you starta new program, the general belief is that if the Government's gottheir hand in it, it's going to take a long time for them to work outthe kinks. The time to work out the kinks has been short becauseof the truly cooperative spirit between both the VA and the De-partment of Defense and, really, with the respective military de-partments. We think it has worked out very well. I haven't experi-enced that kind of cooperation in the past in dealing with otherFederal agencies.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I know under the Veterans' Employment Actworking with the Labor Department you have had some problems.It took a year to get that going, didn't it?

Mr. VOGEL. 74' certainly did, sir. It took a long time to get it goingand working well. We haven't had that experience in administer-ing the Montgomery GI Bill.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. My other question one of you could maybeanswer regards the money that comes in. I think youor it doesn'tcome in, but you keep up with the $100 a month. How much hascome in from the Active Forces now? Dr. Wyant? Mr. Vogel?

Dr. WYANT. I knew that earlier today. I think that was 140Idon't know. I'll have to provide that for you for the record.

69

65

[Subsequently the Veterans' Administration provided the follow-ing information:]

$313,019,829 was received from participants under the Montgomery GI Bill-ActiveDuty participants during the period July 1985 through August 1987.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, we want to be sure. You know, whenyou figure these budgets up here, if you are not careful, they won'tgive us credit for it. And we were fortunate that when they had thebudget procedure for fiscal year 1988 that this was not a minus andit would not have to be figured as taking money out of the Treas-ury. And our set-asideenough money was coming in from this$100 a month, as far as the basic benefits were concerned. Andsomewhere down the line I want `o take that money, even thoughyou don't get your hands on it, and take credit for 8 percent inter-est because it's money that the Government does not pay out.These monies are these young men and women's pay. And we wantto be sure that that shows up in the proper manner, Mr. Chair-

* man, that it's just not fluffed over.Did you find the figures?Mr. VOGEL. The only figure I have in front of me, Mr. Chairman,

is the amount that we paid to date to the trainees. We paid out$140,119 as of October 13, 1987.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's $140 million.Mr. VOGEL. I'm sorry.Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's $140,000. Is that all?Mr. VOGEL. That's under chapter 30. We only have about 475 in

training as of October 13, 1987.Mr. DOWDY. Dr. Wyant, if you could make that figure available

that the chairman has requested so that we could include it in therecord.

And I want to echo what the chairman said about the coopera-tive spirit that the three witnesses have given this subcommittee,especially Dr. Wyant. We have had a number of times to work withhim. And we find that he does a very good job.

Mr. Smith?Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And gentle-

men, welcome to the committee.In yesterday's panel of program managers, there was a clear con-

sensus that the per month deductionperhaps $60 over a 20-monthperiod was preferable over the current system. I know publicly inthis testimony you are suggesting that that is something for DODto decide. But Mr. Vogel, I was wondering in your own personaljudgment, do you believe it would be a good idea? It seems to be avery simple change that could be made. It would put less of aburden on the service person.

Mr. VOGEL. We could aaminister the program in whatever way isdecided upon. It's essentially the Department of Defense whichwould be getting the money from a deduction from military pay.We would just be on the receiving and the payout end on it.

I can appreciate that $100 a month may be a little bit more thanan E-1 or E-2 c...n pay out comfortably and that something lessmay be appropriate. The program would still wind up with a 1,200within 20 months and the serviceperson would be eligible to par-ticipate in the program.

7th

66

Mr. &arm of New Jersey. You note on page 9 that the VA couldsupport a death benefit, but the language in H.R. 3208 is too loose-ly worded, and you support the provisions of the POD recommen-dations, the modifications that they have suggested. What arethose modifications, Dr. Wyant?

Dr. WYANT. Under the death benefit, that we would see it onlygoing to the spouse or to the dependents or to the parents. Andthat the payment would only be the unused portion of the partici-pant's pay reduction.

Mr. VOGEL And an injury not caused by misconduct or death notcaused by misconduct.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very mach.Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Jontz?Mr. Jorrrz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I want to thank you, Mr. Vogel, for your good testimony and rec-

ommendations and suggestions.I do have one question. My understanding is that one of the pa:-

poses of the GI bill program is, indeed, to help the Defense Depart-ment in meeting their recruiting goals. Would you also say that an-other function or purpose of the GI bill is to ease the transition ofthe serviceman or woman to civilian life and help them meet edu-cational needs which they might have so that our Nation's veter-ans can adjust properly?

Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir. In administering this program and othereducation programs over the years, it has been the readjustmentvalue that has been at the forefront of our thought. Recruitmentand retention of the military, of qualified and highly qualified indi-viduals, is a matter of importance to all of us, but ofcourse of keenimportance to the Department of Defense.

Our approach is readjustment first, and on retention and recruit-ment we defer to DOD which is interested, as all Americans are, inhaving high quality individuals in uniform.

Mr. -Tom& So, any factor which influenced the ability of the GIbill or the VA to fill the need for proper adjustment and fill theneed for educational benefitsany factor that would be an obstacleto thatwould be a concern of yours.

Mr. VOGEL. Absolutely, sir.Mr. Joni z. We have heard a great deal of testimony that the

$100 a month deduction does serve as a major obstacle in prevent-ing young men and women entering the service for signing up forthe program. And given that the result of this that there will be agreat many veterans whose transition to civilian life will be mored4tricult because they cannot participate in education programsuAder the GI bill, would you not conclude that the $100 is in fact amajor barrier to serving your purpose which is to serve the veter-ans and help with their educational needs?

Mr. VOGEL. We have been very pleasantly surprised at the levelof participation as it is. I, very frankly, wouldn't have thought wewould have had this high level of participation that we have had.So, our view, franEly, from that beginning point is that the partici-pation doesn't seem to have been hurt by the $100 a month deduc-tion, but if the participation could, indeed, be higher, as you sug-gest, Mr. Jontz, I really don't know what the answer is. We see anincreasingly higher participation rate. Some other number could

71

67

avail themselves of the program if the monthly deduction wassomewhat less.

Mr. Jowrz. And that would help you to serve their educationalneeds whew they become veterans?

Mr. VOGEL. Absolutely, sir.Mr. Joivrz. Thank you.Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir.Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Evans?Mr. EVANS. No questions, Mr. Chairman.Mr. DOWDY. Mr Smith?Mr. Small of New Jersey. I thank the Chair.

notice that General Lukeman's testimony points out that therewould be a loss of $88 million if we went to a $60 per month payreduction. Over what period of time is that' Do you happen toknow, Mr. Vogel?

Mr. VOGEL. I would imagine over the 20-month period. I am notsure, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. That is a significant amount.Mr. VOGEL. I just saw that testimony earlier this morning. And

my staff said we don't know where that came from, but we wouldlike to talk to them about that.

Mr. Small of New Jersey. Maybe that's lost interest.Mr. VOGEL. Perhaps.Mr. Smrni of New Jersey. I guess that's a question more aptly

put to General Lukeman.Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman?Mr. MorrGOMERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.To follow up on Jim Jontz question to you, Mr. Vogel, that is an

unknown about the $100 a month, but we have been getting an im-pression from the people who have been dealing with these youngmen and women. It might have a chanceI think in World War II40 to 45 percent used their GI benefits. The Korean War was closeto 50 percent, and then the Vietnam War was over 60 to 65 per-cent. By having their own money involved, the $1,200 plus, makesa total of $10,800, it is felt that they might go to school after theyget out to get their money back. Then once we get them there, wegot them. So, we ought to be very careful that we take a good, hardlook at that.

I didn't want the $100 a month, Jim, but that's all could do toget the bill. Now since we have got it, we just have to kind of waitand see. I am not sure whether it's an advantage to make them goto school or not, but we ought to watch that point and see how itcomes out.

My other comment. We are trying to get off the computer howmuch money has come in to the VA, but did you say $142,000 hasbeen paid out?

And I realize that's a small number because the program is notquite 3 years old yet. The big cost to the Government will be in1990 and 1991. And so, I'm just saying these are pretty accuratefigures that on the $100 a month that's being paid into the Govern-ment on the GI bill, the Government is taking in $313 millionversus $142,000. So, actually it's certainly a good deal at this timefor the U.S. Government. These are funds that are coming in andat a later date, of course, in 1990 and 1991 I know there will be a

72

68

lot of hollering around here. You didn't tell us it was going to costthis much. But right now it is certainly working well, and the Gov-ernment is benefiting as well as young men and young women$313 million.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.Let me ask one final question in light of the figures that the

chairman has presented about the total dollars that have beenlocked in.

If Gramm-Rudman is implemented, what effect would this haveon chapter 30 and chapter 106 programs?

Mr. VOGEL. Very frankly, Mr. Chairman, we are not sure. TheGeneral Counsel has that under consideration. We posed the ques-tion to the General Counsel's Office about the possible effects if wehave a sequester. I don't know whether Mr. Kane can answer that.I don't have the answer yet from the General Counsel.

Mr. KANE. We don't have any answer at this point in time, sir.We don't know what the reduction would be. It could have animpact on it.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Do you mean, Mr. Chairman, like it wouldreduce the $300 to $250 a month?

Mr. DOWDY. Right.Mr. MONTGOMERY. It did under the Vietnam-era bill. We had

some complaints on that. It reduced it $15 to $20. But for somereason this was exempt under the first Gramm-Rudman. Now,whether it will continue to be, I certainly hope it will be. That's agood point. We ought to follow up on that because $300, as testifiedhere yesterday, is really not enough funding to get these kidswhere they can really get a decent education.

Mr. DOWDY. I thank each of the witnesses very much. And again,we would like to have the figure. I am sure that it will correspondwith the figure that our committee has, but we would welcomeyour information.

Mr. VOGEL. Yes, sir.Mr. DOWDY. Next we will hear from Lt. Gen. Anthony Lukeman,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Person-nel Policy, and Maj. Gen. Sloan Gill, Acting Deputy Assistant Sec-retary of iefense for Manpower and Personnel.

We want to thank both of you, General Lukeman and GeneralGill, for being here today. And we would ask that you proceed,General Lukeman first, followed by General Gill. We have receivedyour very excellent written testimony, and we thank you for that.And if you would like, proceed to summarize your written state-ment if at all possible.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. ANTHONY LUKEMAN, DEPUTY ASSIST-ANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR MANPOWER AND PERSON-NEL POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

General LUKEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll do that. Ireally appreciate the opportunity to speak here for the Departmentof Defense and give a perspective on the three bills. And more par-ticularly, I want to express the appreciation of the Department,and in particular the young men and women who are coming into

73

69

the military services today for this very, very fine program thatthe committee has crafted.

Very briefly, our position on the three bills is that we favor anextension of time from 2 weeks to 30 days during which a service-member can make the decision whether or not to participate in theprogram. The language of one of the bills is a little bit too restric-tive, we believe, . requiring action at the close of the individual'straining .period when a lot of other things are going on and theman or woman's mind may not be on this subject. He is gettingready to go to his new duty station, thinking about going on leave,thinking.about his new training that he is going to be taking andso forth. So, we ihink 30 days is a little bit better.

The language of the other bill saying not to exceed 60 days issomewhat less than desirable because three of the four services'basic training is less than 60 days. 'thirty is simply a good numberthat makes sure it will get done early on in the person's enlist-ment, and it gives the services plenty of flexibility to fit it properlyinto their basic training when most of the administrative thingsare being done.

We also favor the provision to provide for circumstances where aperson becomes disabled or dies but hasn't used an educationalbenefit at least equal to the amount that his pay was reduced; thatis, the difference between the member's contribution and whateverbenefit he may have used would be refunded in a case of disabilityor provided to the survivors in the case of death.

In addition, we would propose an amendment providing benefitsto certain individuals who join the program but are dischargedbefore serving the required amount of time for reasons that eitherbenefit the Government or are uncontrollable by the member.These would include early discharge !.o attend ROTC colleges, aforced reductioh in strength, a medical discharge without disabil-ity, or discharge because of being a sole surviving son or daughter.In those instances, we propose 1 month of benefit for each monthof duty.

We are opposed to several other features of the bills. There isgood information developed by the GAO that was mentioned byMr. Vogel that flight training courses don't accomplish the basicemployment objectives of the program. So, we don't see that as aproper extension of benefits. It is clear that a significant majorityof the graduates of these programs in the past did not go on to full-time employment.

We also oppose changing the current pay reduction scale to asmaller monthly reduction over a longer period. This is purely acost consideration where we don't see any great benefit that wouldaccrue, but there would be a cost of about $88 million over the first2 years because of the smaller reductions in pay for new membersjoining the program.

Similarly, we don't favor the transferability provisions. Theywould cost about $20 million a year for the kickers which DODpays for. Transferability would be used largely by careerists, sothere wouldn't be any measurable improvement in retention.

Finally, we oppose reopening the opportunity for individuals whochose to opt out. It would obviously increase costs. It wouldn't helprecruiting, and it would encourage individuals to get out of the

74-

70

service rather then to stay in. It would also send a signal to futurepotential participants that we weren't serious about the one-timenature of the decision. And it could easily tempt some new recruitsinto not participating, betting on the come that they will get an-other chance later in their first enlistment.

We think Congress did an extremely fine job in constructing theMontgomery GI Bill, and a few minor fixes ce-tainly are warrant-ed. But we don't see a clear payback to the Department of Defensefor these several provisions I've just discussed. As a result wewould choose to use the dollars that they would cost for some ofthe many other critical purposes that are competing for defense re-sources.

Sir, I can help on the question of how much would be involved inthe first year's cost of this program. The figure is about $216 mil-lion that would be reduced in pay for 180,000 members that wouldjoin the program during a 1-year period at today's rates. I thinkthat is the number the chairman VMS looking for earlierabout$216 million.

That concludes by informal remarks, sir.[The prepared statement of General Lukeman appears on p. 222.]Mr. D3WDY. General Gill?

STATEMENT OF MM. GEN.SLOAN R. GILL, USAF (RET.), ACTINGDEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (GUARD AND RE-SERVE) FOR MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL, U.S. DEPARTMENTOF DEFENSE

General GILL. Thank you. I am very pleased to appear before thissubcommittee and testify on the Montgomery GI Bill and in par-ticular for chapter 106 that applies to the Reserve Forces. I wouldlike to submit my testimony for the record, and make a short open-ing statement.

We think that the Montgomery GI Bill has proven to be an excel-lent recruiting and retention tool. Our figures showed 64,000 en-rolled by mid-September, and as you heard Mr. Vogel of VA testifythat number had risen to 68,000 by the end of September. Wethink those numbers are going to continue to grow.

We had a few beginning problems with the Reserve MontgomeryGI Bill. Most of those were administrative, and with the full coop-eration of VA and DMDC, I think those are all well behind us. Weseem to be improving every day.

I was asked to testify specifically on H.R. 2950 and the flighttraining provision for reservists and guardsmen. We are opposed tothat bill for the same reasons that General Lukeman and Mr.Vogel gave.

There is one difference between chapter 106, and chapter 30 inthe way the flight training would work. A full-time student wouldbe reimbursed for 75 percent of the training costs, and the studentwould use up 1 month's benefits for each $140 reimbursement.Flight training, even in small aircraft, Cessna 172s, etc. leading toa private license, costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 to$75 an hour. We "ould see that the individual could very easily useup his total benefits of $5,040 within 6 months and still have 51/2years of a requirement to the Reserve. Due to the fact chapter 30

5

71

benefits are for service-rendered and chapter 106 requires an obli-gation to serve. There is a fundamental difference.

The Sixth Quadrennial Review, by the way, are looking at quitea few other changes. It would be presumptious of me to say whatthe Quadrennial Review is going to recommend.

One of the things, that we would like to administratively changeis that chapter 106, the way it is presently written, requires aperson who does not have a high school diploma to receive thathigh school diploma or its' equivalent prior to completion of initialactive duty for training. That's a very stressful time for theseyoung men or women in the Reserve or the Guard who are awayfrom home going through initial active duty for training. Theyhave very little time to persue outside educations activities.

We would like to see the requirement for a high school diplomaextended to 2 years which would make it read exactly like thechapter 30 active duty bill. In other words, the reservist wouldhave up to 2 years from signing up for his 6-year commitment tocome up with a high school diploma. We think that would improvethe program considerably.

Again, I think the Montgomery GI has been a great success. Ithas proven to be a great recruiting and retention tool.

And I stand by for questions.[The prepared statement of General Gill appears on p. 227.]Mr. DOWDY. Thank you General Gill and General Lukeman.General Lukeman, in your statement, you supported changing

the provisions of the Montgomery GI Bill to allow a new recruit 30days within which to make a decision regarding his or her partici-pation in the Montgomery GI Bill. Is that correct?

General LUKEMAN. Yes, sir.Mr. DOWDY. So that I can get the time sequence settled in my

mind, when does the recruit first receive a paycheck? How long hashe been at Fort Jackson, SC when he gets his first paycheck?

General LUKEMAN. The way it is normally done, sir, instead ofgetting a regular paycheck, the recruit's money is withheld by theorganization. And then enough money is made available to him forthe necessities because he is in a closed environment and not in a

ition where he can spend money except on PX necessities andregular bucket issue, the things that he needs to buy out of his

own money. So, basically during recruit training, du, dollars arewithheld from the recruit so that he is going to have something leftwhen he gets ready to go on recruit leave and go on to his nextduty station. Enough is made available to him for the necessities,and that's all.

Mr. DOWDY. So, under the Army scheme, during basic trainingthe trainee does not get a paycheck. Is that right?

General LUKEMAN. I cannot speak to the Army. And I know Gen-eral Ono will be here just following me. I can tell you preciselythat in the case of the Marine Corps, that's correct. He does not get

4 a paycheck.Mr. DOWDY. Yesterday we had some comments from witnesses

who speculated that if we increase the amount of time duringwhich a recruit has to make that decision, that may be counterpro-ductive and may actually decrease the likelihood that a youngperson might choose to participate in the Montgomery GI Bill.

7G

72

Can you foresee any circumstances where that would be true?General LUKEMAN. No, I really can't, sir. Before this last year in

Washington, I spent the 2 years previous to that at the MarineCorps recruit depot at San Diego, and I have a pretty good feel forthe way these young fellows think. And in all the services, there isa great adjustment when they first come ir. to basic training. Thatperiod is difficult for them and they want to do well, and they wantto concentrate on whatever their drill sergeant wants them to con-centrate on. They tend to get over that at aboutI'd say about the2-week period, and then start to settle down and think a little bitnormally. So, I think an extension would probably work to the ben-efit of everybody, and the effect that you mention probably wouldnot happen.

Mr. DOWDY. Would we be correct in saying that in terms of get-ting young people who should be participating in the program toparticipate in the Montgomery GI Bill that the emphasis should beplaced on the period of time when they are talking with their re-cruiter back home, and the recruiter should discuss the Montgom-ery GI Bill fully with the young person, with their parents, andwith their spouse, if they're married?

Would I be correct in saying that that would be the most impor-tant time to wake sure they have made their decision regardingthe Montgomery GI Bill and that they have made a good decisionrather than saying it's more invortant to make that decision inthe third or fourth week after they arrive at basic training?

General LUKEMAN. Absolutely, sir. That's the time that the indi-vidual should have his mind made up. Before he or she comes intothe service. It's a responsibility of the recruiter to make thathappen.

Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much.Mr. Chairman?Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Wayne. To follow up on your

questionand as I say, we are just trying to figure what is best forthe GI bill. The recruiter and the parents, as you say, should havethese young men and women pretty well oriented to what benefitsthey are going to get and what they need to think about when theycome in to the service.

We found out that maybe the 2 weeks might be an advantagethe longer you give them. And we designed this bill. You have tosign out from under it. We want young Americans to get an educa-tion. We think that is the survival of this country that they get asmuch education as possible.

To extend 30 days, doesn't this give them more ways to spend themoney? As I mentioned yesterday, one fellow didn't join up becausehe was spending $100 a month on phone bills calling home andthinking about automobiles and stereo equipment. Sometimes youjust have to move in and do it for these young men and women.Then they will thank you later on when those benefits are therewaiting on them. How does that hit you?

General LUKEMAN. It's one of those really difficult questions be-cause the other side of the coin is the young fellow that makes thebad decision not to participate because he is so shell-shocked whenhe first gets to recruit training. So, it's a tout judgment call.

v

73

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, you know, as a Marine, they told usfrom Parris Island that 12 months is all right. See, they don't evenknew how to get out of here. It's not but one gate and one road outof Pay ris Island. So, they don't need any money. Better get themwhile you can.

General Gill, nice to see you. Congratulations on your new as-signment, and we appreciate the work you did as chief of the AirReserve.

You mention several areas. We had some areas that were left outof the Reserve section of the GI bill pertaining to vocational train-ing and also master and Ph.D. degrees that could not be gottenunder the GI bill for the Reserve, that maybe we would considerputting it under the Reserve clause. Is the Defense Departmenttaking any position? Maybe you mentioned it and I just missed it.

General Gul. No, sir. The Sixth Quadrennial Review is lookingat that at this time.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Looking at adding vocational?General Gul. Right. At adding these same benefits, the same

coverage and everything that's under chapter 30 for the active dutyto be applicable to the Reserve Forcesin other words, to have itextended past the baccalaureate degree to a masters degree and adoctors degree, and then also perhaps lowering it to also cover vo-cational schools.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. General Lukeman, we had some testimonyfrom members yesterday pertaining towe are hearing from serv-ice personnel that will retire before 1989 that there is a loophole inthe legislation, and they were left out and not able to get the bene-fits or the New GI Bill. Has the Defense Department taken any po-sition pertaining to this so-called group that say they were left out?

Now, we took what you sent up here and put in the New GI Billas far as military personnel. We were told by Secretary Weinbergerthat you have got to extend the Vietnam -era benefits longer than1989 or it's a possibility that 35 percent of the military forces havenot used their benefits, and they might start getting out in 1986,1987, and 1988. So, we took what you sent up here, and we ex-tendedif you're in the service after 1989when the Vietnam-erabill expires on December 31 of 1989, if you're in the service, thenyou are eligible for half of the Vietnam era and all of the new GIbenefits.

General LUKEMAN. If there is a loophole in there, sir, we wouldbe interested in closing it because our interest is in making surethat all these servicemen have the advantage of the program.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I'm not saying there s a loophole. That wasjust the tern- -aat was used.

And Mr. Chairman, we would certainly need to have the cost onthose figures if we picked up some other service personnel. Plus wewould ha ,e to decide who would pay for it. Right now the Veter-ans' Administration pays for the basic benefits, and for the Re-serves and what's optional in this bill is paid by the Defense De-partment. So, it's something to look in to.

Thank you.Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Smith?Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

74

General Lukeman, you mentioned that the DOD suggests thateducation benefits be expanded to include certain Montgomery GIBill participants who receive an early discharge. Approximatelyhow many people are we talking about in the early dischargegroup specified in your testimony?

General LUKEMAN. I'll have to give you that answer for therecord, Mr. Smith. And I would be pleased to do that.

[The information follows:]This proposal includes the personnel in four early discharge categories. For the

period July 1, 1985June 30, 1987, the number of Montgomery GI Bill participantswho received one of these types of early discharges are as follows. To attene. ROTC-41, forced reduction in Service strength-58, medical discharges without disability(EPTS),-1412, and sc:e surviving son or daughter-2. The total for all four catego-ries is 1513 servicemembers for the first two years of the program.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. That would be fine.You have also stated in your testimony that lowering the month-

ly pay reduction schedule to $60 would incur a cost to the Govern-ment of an estimated $88 million of lost revenue. I was wonderingif you could tell us how you calculated that figure and over whatperiod of time.

General LUKEMAN. Yes, sir. Basically what it comes down to isyou've got about 180,000 people who would come in during a 1-yearperiod who presently would have their pay reduced at the rate of$100 a month for 12 months, which adds up to about $216 million.As you reduce it to $60 a month for 20 months and with a minorlittle interest calculation that really is not significant, you collectabout $128 million over that same period, which is a 2-year period,the difference being $88 million.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that there wouldbe an increase in participation as a result of the lower amountfrom $100 to $60. And they estimated about a 10 percent increase.But even when you crank that in, there would still be a net differ-ence during that 2-year period of about $75 million in revenues.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. But presumably, since the program lifeis open-ended, the money eventually would be in th:, kitty. It's a 2-year paper loss, but rally the money will be in the pot.

General LUKEMAN. That's right. There would be less revenueduring that 2-year period for the Government.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. In arguing against transferability, youmentioned the high cost to the DOD and limited impact on trans-ferability on retention. And I was wona -ring if you could tell ashow carefully those issues were studied, what the precise numberor loss in dollars there would be. You mentioned $20 million inyour testimony. Maybe you could explain that.

It would seem to me that even a modest positive impact on reten-tion would justify the cost. But perhaps we are wrong, and that'sthe reason fvr this hearing, to try to accumulate as much data aspossible.

General LUKEMAN. We went to the DOD actuary, Mr. Smith,who said this was a really tough problem for her. But she has gotall of the information with regard to the demographics, who thepeople are, how many years of service they have, how people par-ticipate generally, what their family sizes are and so forth, andthen went on to make an estimate to the best of her ability on how

79..

4

75

many people would transfer. And her estimate was that just abouteverybody would transfer benefits who had the capability to do so.And that's where the $20 million figure came from based upon howthe family situation looks and the age of the force, careerists andnon-careerists, and how people get out and so forth.

So, from the Department of Defense point of view, that $20 mil-lion would be a real cost. They are careerists who would have thecapability for transferring it. These are the people who have chil-dren and for the most part have committed themselves beyond theFirst term.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Excuse me and pardon me for inter-rupting.

Do you believe that there would be some who would make thatdecision to stay inin other words, be retained if that incentivewere provided since, as you suggest, virtually all may opt to utilizethe- -

General LUKEMAN. It's possible they would, sir. But the numberof people who are already beyond their first complete enlistmentwho stay in anyway is very high. I think it is in the range of about80 percent of everybody beyond the first complete enlistment goeson to continue for a career.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Is there any kind of poll data or anykind of sampling of people? I'm trying to get a handle on whetheror not that is true.

General LUKEMAN. We would probably have to ask people. Wewould probably have to do an actual survey to get more precise.

Mr. SleTH of New Jersey. If that could be done, I think thatwould be most helpful as to whether or not it indeed is a retentiontool or not. It would have a bearing I think on what we do.

What is the historical figure of the utilization of the GI benefit?How many of the veterans actually use the benefit to its maxi-mum?

General LUKEMAN. I can tell you how many have signed up forthe Montgomery GI Bill. Are you driving at something beyondthat, sir?

Mr. SMI.TH of New Jersey. Well, the GI bill is not new although ithas been renewed. In previous years when it was fully in force andpeople were eitible to utilize the benefit, was there a very highutilization rate or low rate? I think that would have some impactin transferability also, as well as cost.

General LUKEMAN. We do have those figures, sir, and I'll be glatto submit them for the record.

[The information follows:]The current utilization rates for the different GI bill programs that have been en-

acted are as follows: World War 11-50.5 percent, Korean War-43.4 percent, Viet-nam War-65.5 percent. For the Veterans Education Assistance ProgramJune 30,1985, 1,237,000 servicemembers enrolled in this contributory program. Some 632,000later chose to disenroll and receive a refund of their contributions. Of the remaining604,000, 133,000 or 22.0 percent have utilized their benefits.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would very much like to have those.Thank you, General.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Would the gentleman yield?Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes.

76

Mr. MONTGOMERY. We might have misunderstood you up here.Did you say after the first enlistment that 80 percent of the mili-tary across the board re-enlists?

Gener-1 LUKKMAN. That is correct, sir. The retention of those al-ready beyond the first complete enlistment that is, individuals whoare in their second or subsequent enlistment, is very high. And Ibelieve it is in the vicinity of about 80 percent.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. We will let the different chiefsI had no ideait was that high. I know in the Army that after 2 or 3 years, twoout of every three have to get out of the service. Well, we'll acceptthat, and if that's it, that's

General Wriest...N. Sir, if that figure is incorrect, I'll certainlycorrect it for the record. It's quite high. I'm positive of that.

(Note: The actual retention rate for enlisted members who are in their second orsubsequent re-enlistment is 84 percent.)

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you.Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Jontz?Mr. Jorrrz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.General Lukeman, let me ask a question with regard to the por-

tion of H.R. 3208 whic affects the time at which the serviceman orwoman is given the o Lion of electing out of the program. I can'tspeak to H.R. 3180, C .gressman Smith's bill. And perhaps his ob-jective is different. Bu my objectiven the language of H.R. 3208,as I understand it an as I intended to write it, doesn't say thatyou give the recruit days or 60 days or any certain period oftime to make a decisi n. What it says is that you give the Secre-tary of each branch o the service the discretion to set the periodwhen you allow the recruit to make the choice.

Now, we know under the law, as it now works, at some point youmust ask the question to the young serviceman or woman. At somepoint you must give them the chance to get out from the program.And what I hears when I was visiting Parris Island and the otherbasic training stations was that there was some, first of all, ques-tion in the minds of people there as to just how much discretionthey had under the existing law, since the existing law says that atthe time that the recruit begins active duty is when you give themthe choice.

And secondly, I heard some difference of opinion about circum-stances when the best time would be to put that question to therecruit depending on the psychology of things and how the individ-ual branches of the service conduct their training, which is differ-ent from branch to branch.

So, what I tried to do in this bill was to give the individualbranches of the service the maximum discretion within a certainperiod of time, which I defined as 60 days, to put the question tothe recruit at the time they felt was best.

Now, do you think there is some argument for giving the maxi-mum amount of discretion to each individual branch? Do you thinkthere is somedo you agree with my logic?

General LUKEMAN. Absolutely. I absolutely agree with your logic,sir.

Mr. JONTZ. Would you wind taking another look at the languagein H.R. 3208? And if I have misstated what my intentions are, I

81

77

want to ask counsel to help me tewrite it. But perhaps thqrmisunderstanding or it's confusing in the way it reads. An.' Ilike to ask you to lb* at that a second time because my intemionis to give each branch of the service the maximum flerNiity tomake a decision on this question which best suits their basic train-ing. I believe that each branch of the service does want to get themaximum possible participation, and that based on what you aretrying to accomplish in basic training and how you have it struc-tured at each individual branch, they will make a decision aboutwhen to ask the question that will se' ie the purposes of the legisla-tion and serve the mutual objectives that w- have.

General LUKEMAN. Yes, sir. That's certainly the best way to doit.

[The information follows:]The Department of Defense believes that the second sentence of section 1411(cX1)

of Title 38, United States Code, should mad "Any such election shall be made 3t thetime established by the Service Secretary concerned, but prior to the close of the

basic training period."Mr. JONTZ. And let me ask this, more for my curiosity than any-

thing else. You have noted in your testimony that three of thebranches conclude their basic training within 30 days. Is that cor-rect?

General LUKEMAN. No, sir. Less than 60 days.Mr. Jorrrz. I'm sorry. Less than 60 days. And which branch does

not?General LUKEMAN. The Marines.Mr. Jorrrz. And how long is basic training in the Marines?General LUKEMAN. 77 days.Mr. JoNTz. 77 days, okay.Well, whether there would be any argument in changing the 60

days to some longer date so that the Marines would have a longe-option to cover the end of their basic training, I don't know. I don'twant to argue that question today, but I do want to have that infor-mation.

Let me ask a second question here now. I am confused as to yourreasoning that going to the option of $60 a month would incurlosses to the Government of $88 million a year. Let me first pointout this. Again, I can't speak for Mr. Smith's bill. But my bill doesnot mandate the serviceman to go to the $60, as you point out inanother part of your testimony. In fact, it gives them a choice. So,how many of them would want to say I want to pay the $100 amonth and get it over with, I don't know. How many of themwould say I like the $60 option, we don't have any way of knowingthat right now.

But the serviceman now who pays $100 a month for 12 monthseventually pays $1,200. Right?

General LUKEMAN. Yes, sir.Mr. JONTZ. And let's say then that we went to the option of $60 a

month for 20 months. Each of those members of the service wouldalso pay a total of $1,200. Is that right?

General LUKEMAN. Right, sir.Mr. JoNTz. Plus there would be 10 percent more who would pay

$1,200.General LUKEMAN. Right.

82

78

Mr. Jorrrz. So, how can you possibly add $1,200 for everybodywho is there now plus $1,200 for 10 percent more, and come upwith a number which is less than $1,200 for everybody who is therenow?

General LUKEMAN. It happens for those people who join upduring the first year under the new rule. They'll be joining upfrom, let's say, January through December of the first year.

Mr. Jorrrz. All of us in the Congress uilderstand how you playgames with the dates to make it appear that you are spendingmore or spending less.

General LUKEMAN. Oh, no, sir. We would not spend more. Wewould definitely not spend more. We would just have less revenuecoming in during that first year.

Mr. Jorrrz. We understand how to play that game too. But infact, the amount of money that the Government would be collect-ing would be no more or no less over the length of the time thatthe serviceman is on duty under a $60 option than it would beunder $100. Is that right?

General LUKEMAN. .That is correct, sir.Mr. Jorrrz. Thank you.Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Evans?Mr. EVANS. I don't really have any questions of General Luke-

man. I came through MCRD about 2 years ago when you werethere. And I appreciate the better reception I got as a Member ofCongress than what I got when I was a 17-year-old recruit. And weappreciate that..

I just wanted to ask, by the way, when is it in the Marine Corpsthat people are informed and make that option. I didn't read thestatement that you gave, so I'm not clear, for example, when theGI bill is brought up during their boot camp experience.

General LUKEMAN. My recollection is that it was some timewithin the first week or so that they are there. It's quite early. Andit's a pretty stressful time. and I am not sure that they are allmaking the best decision at that time.

Mr. EVANS. When would you recommend then that it be broughtup if you had your way?

General LUKEMAN. I think in general that the young menandthey were all males at San Diego, so that's why I'm saying "men"and not "men and women." But in general, I think the youngpeople I think are pretty well shook down after about 2 cr 3 weeks.And right about that time would be a good time.

Mr. EVANS. All right. Thank you.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Evans.We want to thank you, General Lukeman and General Gill, for

your testimony this morning. The material that you indicated youwould submit for the record we would be happy to receive. Thankyou very much.

General LUKEMAN. Yes, sir.General Gus.. Thank you.Mr. DOWDY. Our next panel consists of the personnel chiefs of

each branch of service. We are very pleased to have with us todayLt. Gen. Allen Ono, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel withthe U.S. Army; Rear Adm. Leon Edney, the Deputy Chief of Naval

83

79

Operations for Manpower, Personnel and Training; Lt. Gen.Tn.. nas Hickey, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, U.S. AirForce; Brig. Gen. Gail Rea ls, the Director of Manpower, Plans andPolicy Division of the U.S. Marine Corps; and Rear Adm. ThomasMatteson, Chief of Personnel, U.S. Coast Guard.

We are very pleased all of you are with us today. Because we didnot ask you to submit any form of written testimony, I would ap-preciate it very much if each of you would tell us how the Mont-gomery GI Bill is helping you maintain the quality fox :e you need.Please consider this and all subsequent questions to be- a requestfor your personal opinion regarding these issues.

So, if we could start with General Ono, and then in the order inwhich I introduced you.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. ALLEN K. ONO, DEPUTY CHIEF OFSTAFF FOR PERSONNEL, U.S ARMY

General ONO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.I am Lieutenant General Ono, the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff

for Personnel.The Montgomery GI Bill has been dynamiteMr. Downy. General, talk a little more into that mike. Pull it

closer, please.General ONO. The Montgomery GI Bill has been a dynamite re-

cruiting incentive for the U.S. Army. Since implementation in July1985, the cumulative Army participation is '79 percent. And for thepast 3 months our participation rate has been 92 percent. Likewisein our Reserve components it has far exceeded our expectations.Today more than 26,000 Army guardsmen and 14,000 Army reserv-ists are using or have used benefits. So, it is a powerful recruitingtool.

The Army of 3day requires I think bright, highly motivated andcommitted soldiers. And the recruiting incentives that we havemust be what young Americans ,irant and need. These youngpeople are, in fact, opting for college education and the funds thatcome from the Montgomery GI Bill. This remarkable record thensays that the current provisions do work.

And we share Chairman Montgomery's and your concerns andadvice to be cautious with change. "Will any change increase ourparticipation rate," is a question I have asked myself. And my esti-mation is that I doubt whether any appreciable higher rate can beachieved. In other words, 92 percent within the last 3 months saysthat our strategy in regard to how we with the young mer..and women who join the Army may be correct.

Saying it another way, we put great emphasis on our recruiters.emphasizing to the young men and women before they joie aboutthe importance of the bill. During the period that they are in theDelayed Entry Program prior to coming on active duty, the provi-sions of the Montgomery GI Biil are explained in excruciatingdetail to the members. Therefore, when they come into our train-ing centers, the decisions are pretty well fixed in the minds of ouryoung soldiers. The decisions are made in day two while in our re-cention station. It is done deliberately at that stage to avoid the ad-

84

start basic training.ministrative burdens that would disrupt training once the recruits

80

That ends my informal comments. Thank you very much.Mr. DOWDY. Admiral Edney?

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. LSON A. EDNEY, DEPUTY CHIEF OFNAVAL OPERATIONS (MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAIN-ING), U.S. NAVY

Admiral EDNEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.On behalf of the Navy, I also would like to express our apprecia-

tion to Congressman Montgomery and to the outstanding supportof this committee for the Montgomery GI Bill. It is one of the mostdramatic demonstrations of commitment by the Congress and thepeople in recognizing the importance of military service to the de-fense of this country and the education of our youth who are thefuture of this country.

In both those regards, the Montgomery GI Bill is doing its jobA and doing it well. We find that it is a strong supplement and en-

couragement to our young people to come into the Navy. As youknow, in the Navy our recruiting program emphasizes the totalpackage. So, we are encouraging young people to come m for thetradition of service to our country, for the excitement of adventureand travel, and most importantly for the c .nmitment that ourservices today plac.s on education in our highly technological socie-ty. You cannot grow in upward mobility or contribute to the socie-ty unless you get yourself an education. And that is what theMontgomery GI Bill puts up front from the first day that we startthe business of recruiting an individual. That is to convey to himthe importance of education in our minds and in t.hz minds of theCongress evidenced by the support of this bill.

We also find that from the first day you recruit an individual,your job from then on is to retain him/her. And we find that thebenefits of the GI bill under the Montgomery act are also an effective retention tool.

We would like to report thst the receptivity in the Navy is onthe upswing, and we fmd that in recent months we have been get-ting 61 percent of our personnel into the program. And we are now,approaching a 50 percent cumulative participation level.

We experienced growing pains in the early implementation ofthe program. However, we have taken several initiatives to correctthat.

We provide a letter to each recruit from the recrciting districtcommanding officer that highlights the importance and the bene-fits of the Montgomery GI Bill.

We are now in the process of &vet, -g a formal brief that willgo to each individual potential recruit. The applicant will thenhave to sign an acknowledgement that he received the brief andthat he understood it. At the same time we provide each applicantwith a question and answer sheet that provides all of the informa-tion that you need to know.

And we are producing a positive video tape to reinforce the im-portance and the meaning of the Montgomery GI Bill. We till tie itin to the importance of education for the individual. Because of the

85,

81

youth that we are dealing with, if we can get, up front, the impor-tance of education, we can make education a positive motivator.

We also, commencing on 1 January this year, will begin automat-ic payroll reductions. So, the individual has all this explained tohimthat he will automatically have a payroll reduction, and he isin the program unless he takes a positive step to say, no, I do notchoose to. And when he makes that step, he will be counseled thathe should think that decision over again.

For all of the previously mentioned reasons, we feel that the pro-gram is a positive one for Navy. Because of our initial low partici-pation, which was probably largely attributed to the speed withwhich we got the word out, we would w&'lcome an opportuitity for awindow that would allow those people that initially opted out torethink that decision because of the importance we attc...ch to whatyou have correctly put as the importance of education to our socie-ty.

I also think that changes, particularly in a declining budget envi-ronmeet, prooably should be made slowly. If I looked at a change,fron,_:.. personal opinion, the most important are would be refund-ing for an individual that leaves the service through no fault of hisor her own. We have had numerous letters that when you givethem the fairness test indicate a need for flexibility. Perhaps thereought to be some recognition for those individuals that go into theprogram with good faith, committed to education, but because ofthe arducus service or whatever reason, they are forced to leavethe military under honorable conditions, for medical reasons orsomething beyond their control. In all fairness they ought to haveaccess to the return of the money that would normally have beentheirs had they been allowed to complete the enlistment contract,

I will stand ready for questions at the end of my colleagues'statements here. It is a privilege to be here today representing theNavy.

Mr. DOWDY. General Hickey?

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. TAIOMAS J. HICKEY, DEPUTY CHIEF OFSTAFF FOR PERSONNEL, U.S. AIR FORCE

General HICICY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.1 have good news to report this morning for all of you. Since I

appeared before you here some' 6 months ago in support of theMontgomery GI Bill, the Air Force has increased its participationrate from 44.7 percent up to 68.5 percent. this last month. Those aretruly remarkable increases and we too, as with the Navy, had avery low participation rate the first year or so of the test, down inthe mini-1930's, as a matter of fact. So, for that reason we also sup-port a window to let us go back and recover some of those folksthat we don't think we really gave a fair shot to.

We are getting quality people as a result of the Montgomery GIBill. Over 45 percent of our enlisted non-prior service recruitstoday have some kind of post-secondary experi.,nce. And we are ata point now where we have only 495 non-high school graduates inour 490,000 enlisted men and women.

The Montgomery GI Bill is working very well. There are someminor changes that we believe should be made to improve wh- L is

82,

granted already an excellent program. And my GI bill programmanager I think brought those to the attention of the committeeyesterday, and I will be glad to reiterate those today during ques-tioning.

Bat this committee and the Congress is to be congratulated for avery, very excellent program. And I thank you for the opportunityto appear before you and tell you that. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DowDY. General Reels?

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. GAIL M. REALS, DIRECTOR,MANPOWER, PLANS AND POLICY DIVISION, U.S. MARINE CORPSGeneral REALS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.The Marine Corps could just say amen and hallelujah as far as

what has already been said because the Montgomery bill in theMarine Corps is working in a fantastic fashion. The participationfor this fiscal year is at the 75 percent level and it looks like it isgoing to continue to go up.

We, as I am sure was said yesterday, believe that the bill is partof the overall recruitment package, and it is a very important part.And we look at it as a readjustment benefit for people who haveserved their country. And it is very valuable, in its own right, re-gardleas of what it does for retention.

On the side of quality in the Marine Corps, again the numbers Ithink speak for themselves. The nu_nber of high school graduates isat an all-time high, as is the caliber in the sense of AFQT or qual-ity of test scores as far as our entrants. So, I believe the bill as itstands right now is doing a great job.

In the Marine Corps we would tend to be a little bit, slow in rec-ommending many changes to it. As has already been mentionedabout some of our people, a wc got off to a little bit of a slow startin making sure that the recruiters and everyone had the proper in-formation, perhaps we left out a few people and did not properlyinform, that the fairness test. might say that we should go back andperhaps ask them and give them another crack at it. But beyondthat, we think the bill is fine as it is.

Thank you.Mr. DOWDY. Admiral Matteson?

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. THOMAS T. MATTESON, CHIEF OFPEKSONNEL, U.S. COAST GUARD

Admiral IVINITESON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguishedmembers.

It is a privilege for me to represent the Coast Guard here todayand to echo what has been said by my four predecessors that this isa super bill and it is an excellent tool that the Coast Guard uses inrecruiting.

Unfortunately, I am not able to sit here and say to you that wehave the participation level that we believe we should have and wewant. Since I too was here 6 months ago, we have increased ourparticipation significantly, but I must admit at this point it isabout 52 percent in the Coast Guard.

We learned a few things from 6 months ago. We learned that theother services, particularly the Air Force and the Army, were

871

83

doing a superb job. And we have borrowed some of their tools. Wehave incorporated them into our program. And I can say to youthat if I am here a year from now, which I hope to be, we expect toget that 52 percent up even highervery, very significantly higher,I might add.

As with the Marine Corps, I would agree that we probably in theCoast Guard need a window. We admittedly didn't do as good a jobas we should have done at the beginning. And those people are outthere. And I think they deserve the benefits and shouldn't .:ferfrom the fact that we didn't sell the program as well as we couldhave.

It is an excellent program. It's an excellent bill. And it is a pleas-ure to work to make an gsxcellent bill even better. And we look for-ward to doing that with the committee.

Thank you, sir,Mr. DOWDY. Thank all of you.I have one comment that I want to make and then have each of

you respond to it. ltegarding the recommendation that we changethe amount of time available to a recruit after he or she gets tobasic training to make this decision, I believe, we should be lookingat the time before he leaves his hometown going to basic training.

Would it be impractical to change your procedure so that the de-cision is made by the recruit with the recruiter, after consultingwith the parents or the spouse, if he or she is married? Would it beimpractical to, the Army says they make it the second day or what-ever, instead of extending that time back to 30 days, if we look inthe other direction and have the paperwork signed in the recruit'shometown and have that decision made there rather than afterthey get to basic training? Would it be impossible to do that in apaperwork sense? What's wrong with looking in this direction?General?

General ONO. The intent of what you are referring is what we dotodc'y, I think you know, which is to have our recruiters do the de-tailed expinnations before applicants join the service. In fact, weare finding that much of the reason why they are joining is be-cause of the Montgomery GI Bill.

You raise a question in regard to whether it could be done at theMilitary Platmce ''recessing Station (MEPS). I am talking aboutthe paperwork. The MEPS is an entry station. We have a very,very modest and austere staff ,st the MEPS. Our preference is to doit at the reception station.

As I statedand I think all of you have seen it at our receptionstationsthe briefing the we give is primarily a reminder briefingand the reiteration of the provisions of the Montgomery GI Bill.The paperwork is then executed during day two. We prefer toretain the procedure that we have today.

Mr. DOWDY. All right. Let me ask this. What papers has a recruitsigned in the Army at his hometown recruiting station? What pa-perwork has been signed that follows him to Fort Jackson, SC?

General ONO. Not much as far as what is signed at the recruitingstation. The paperwork that goes forward mainly are the officialdocuments that are signed at the iviEPS, at the Military EntranceProcessing Station.

Mr. DOWDY. What is signed there?

88

84

General ONo. Enlistment contracts. Of coufse, his medical docu-ments ere there, any sort of commitment in regard to training thatwe have made, and length of service. Of course, there are a numberof questions in regard to whether he or she has any criminal recordA. record of drug abuse, statements in regard to dependents, and soon. This part is extensive.

Bt.t yet again, please, we are talking about an arrangementwhere the staffs at the MEPS are pretty austere. And we prefernot to add another administrative requirement there.

Mr. DOWDY. Where does the recruit take the oath of office?General ONo. At the MEPS.Mr. DOWDY. Well, I won't ask the other members ot the panel to

-espond to it because I'm really just thinking out loud. But basedon my visits to bases represented by all of the services, in my per-sonal opinion the ArmyGeneral Ono said they would make thedecision in the second day. What the Army iF doing appears to beworking well. I think that we are going in the wrong direction ifwe talk about lengthening the amount of time within which the re-cruit has to make the decision to 30 days or 60 days. I don't thinkthat the recruit is that much more settled in his environment inthe third week or the fifth week of a basic training than he was bthe second week or first week.

And again, I would emphasize that to me a saner, better thought -out decision is made by the recruit when he is talking with his re-cruiter, when the parents go in to talk with the recruiter, when thespouse goes in to talk with the recruiter. If there were some way tomove that decision up, I think that we would have a betterthought -out decision. I am convinced by what Chairman Montgom-ery has said that the longer we put it off, the more money they willstart spending on phone calls and that type of thing. Perhaps wewon't be really doing them a favor if we lengthen the amount oftime during which they have to make this decision.

Chairman Montgomery?Mr. MONTG1MERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.The Congressional Budget Office, when we were working on the

GI bill 5 years ago, estimated that 13 percent of the military per-sonnel would participate in the GI bill. And we have heard todayhow wrimg they were.

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. There's a roll call.General Ono, you suggested that we maybe go slow in making

any changes. It certainly seems you don't need any changes with92 percent sign up in August. Isn't that what you said?

General ONO. Yes, sir.Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, thank you.And Admiral Edney, we appreciate that the Navy luls looked

into this situation, and we were out looking at the different waysthat the GI bill was presented. And actually that has a lot to dowith what your percentage is. And I congratulate the Navy. Maybewe should look into the window that you suggested.

Admiral EDNEY. I would make one comment, sir,. Not only didthe bill make sense, but when the congressional delegation wentdown to Orlando, it focused the attention -.hat we needed applieddown there and we appreciate that. Or laridc, as you know, is up toabout 55 percent, and they have their heaus on straight now.

85

Also, one comment to the chairman on his cite previously. Itseems to me that the smaller window in which to make the chsen-rollm3nt decision is appropriate. Two weeks is fine now but we willchange that approach starting 1 January. Then it will be a positivething. You are in the program. We advist -ou how much advan-tage there is to the program, and now you have to focus and makea decision to opt out of the program. And we really don't want tospend too much time encouraging them to think about opting outof the program. So, we are comfortable that we are up front andmade the decision to begin automatic pay reductions. You're in and'ou've got to do something to get out. And we think that's the way

it ought to be.Mr. MONTGOMERY. Admiral, how long do you think that window

should be?Admiral EDNEY. The window now is 2 weeks, and we are comfort-

able with that.Mr. MONTGOMERY. You're comfortable with 2 weeks.Admiral EDNEY. We would not go any further than 30 days, but

we are comfortable with the 2-week window.Mr. MONTGOMERY. Actually Orlando did have a bad day when we

went down to look at the GI bill.Admiral EDNEY. We understand bad days, and we agree with

you.Mr. MONTGOMERY. Actually the Fleet Reserve raised more Cain

than we did. We had them on the trip, and those things happened.And thank you.

General Hickey, thank y'u :or your report today. You have beenaround working with us for about a year now, and we appreciatethe Air Force. We saw some of the best presentations of the GI billdone by the Air Force at your our basic training station. And it isgood to see that you are up to 68 percent. Do you have any com-ment?

General HICKEY. Sir, well, it refers back to the timing and wherethe decisions are. And I would only sayand I am not complainingbecause our recruiting force is sufficient for our needs. But we onlyhave about - one-third of the per capita recruiters per recruit thatsome of the other services have. And it's fine. It allows us to suffi-ciently get all we need.

But what it does do is it very much restricts the manpower thatwe have available, as Chairman Dowdy was asking earlier, to dothe one-on-one kinds of convincing Fnd explaining of the GI bill torecruits. And so, as you know, we have concentrated our program-matic materials and everything to that one place at Lackland. Andthat's why we have attempted to do it there.

It is no big deal. We think it was important. We think we coulddo a better job if we had the 30 day window in which to work.Right now, we introduce it again on their second day of trainingand they have until the 711 day to make up their mind. And ourimpression is, as General Lukeman's was with the Marine recruits,that's a very negative time They don't like much of anything thatis happening to them, and they don't think that we are offeringthem much of anything good for them to do within any of thosepoints. So, when we are arguing for the GI bill right at that point,we think we are turning them off.

i9O

86

We think that about the 3-week point-2 to 3 weeksas a matterof fact, we know when we would do it. We would introduce it onthe 17th day instead of the 2nd day, and we would give them untilthe 22nd day instead of the 7th day to make their decisions. So, weknow where we would put it in the program. It wouldn't disrupttraining. And we think we would get a higher participation rate.

Mr.. MONTGOMERY. Well, it's interesting that the t 3 services dis-agree. And probably the window we might look into, Mr. Chair-man, as optional with the different service commands.

General Reals, my time is up, but we appreciate what the Ma-rines have done on the GI bill and the high percentage. Do youhave any suggestions?

General REAIS. Well, I was just going to follow up on what hasbeen said. I think one of the Congressmen mentioned it this morn-ing. The key thing is to provide a certain amount of flexibility. Andwe would support up to a 30 day window. Now, just how we woulduse that I would not say today. But that would seem to be accepta-ble to allow for the differences in the various services and howthey approach it and the psychology and the various programs.That might be helpful to have that kind of flexibility.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, Admiral, you're out there on the spot.We appreciate you are going to look at the percentages.

And you know, what needs to be done, Mr. Chairman, I guessand you don't want to oversell it. I never thought the All-Volun-teer system would work as well as it is working. But I am bold tosay that this is probably the best personnel in the 35 or 40 yearsthat I have been involved in the military that I have seen. We havegot some fine young men and women out there. And we ought to beproud of it. Somebody is doing a pretty good job.

Admiral, you know, do what you have to do. If you think yourpercentage is okay, leave it alone. If you want to get it up, move&aead.

Admiral MATTESON. It's not okay, sir, and it's going up.Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you.Mr. Downy.% Mr. Smith?Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.General Ono, what you just related to the committeeand we

did see it earlier in some of the testimoniestl- it 92 percent of theArmy meruits are opting into the program, is absolutely outstand-ing. But it does beg the question as to how many of those recruitsdo we expect to really go on and use the benefit.

We all know that any giver number of secondary school studentswill be college- minded. And it is usually a much lor. 3r percentthan 92 or anything close to that whether it be vocational or tech-nical training. There aren't 9 out of 10 young people opting to gointo that kind of post-secondary school education.

I was wondering if the Army has any idea how many of thosebenefits will be utilized. And I know it is a guesstimate, but if youcould- -

General ONo. That's what it would be, a sheer guess.I have spent five assignments in recruiting. And I can report to

you that the youth of America, along with their parents, relateeducation as a path to success. So, therefore, it is an investmentthat we are talking toand that's basically how our recruiters ex-

91

87

plain this program because they, the soldiers, are going to takepay reduction for 12 months. But during that period, much of whatthey are going to be doing is in training. So, the requirement fordollars is not that high.

And the notion of going on to collegethanks to the service thatthey render to our Nationis very, very attractive. A greatnumber of them also understand that they will not be going on tocollege, but the technical and trade school option is very real tothem.

How many will use their benefits? I don't know because 7 wouldexpee that a number who r e in the military, who are in theArm will remain in the A:roy and perhaps the funds will gounused. But again, it is a very wise investment and that's how weexplain it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Very quickly because I know we havea vote. You did mention before that you have asked the questionwhether any c'iange will affect the recruitment rate. The recruit-ment rate is obviously very high, and we are getting a very highquality recruit in all the services.

But I would suggest perhaps the question could also be, whetherif we make some changes in the GI bill, it will also provide a betterdeal for the serviceman or woman. For many of them I can foreseethat they will not utilize the benefit. Many will. but many .nay not.If they can better provide for their families at a modest cost andpositively impact upon retention, it would seem to me that it wouldbe an enhancement to the program. I know the committee will fa-vorably consider that.

Thank you.Mr. DowDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. We have got to

run and be gone a couple of minutes. And we appreciate your testi-mony this morning.

Admiral and General Rea ls, the subcommittee had a chance tobe in San Diego at the Navy and the Marine installation withinthe last couple of months. And that was very enlightening andhelpful. And we were very well received there.

We have some questions about your suggestions about anotherwindow for people who were missed earlier. But rather than askyou to remain for that, we would like maybe to communicate infor-mally. We would ask Mr. Fleming and others maybe to talk withyou before you leave this morning.

We must go for a vote, and we'll be back in about 3 minutes andresume with the remaining witnesses.

[Recess.]Mr. DOWDY. We will resume the hearings, and thank each of you

for waiting while we had to go over and vote. Chairman Montgom-ery had to go vote as well, and he indicated that he wanted to getback to hear the balance of the testimony this morning. But wewill start.

Our next panel includes the military Reserve chiefs. We are de-lighted to have with us today U.S. Mtij. Gen. William Ward, Chiefof Army Reserve; Rear Adm. Neale Smith, Chief of Naval Reserve;Maj. Gen. Roger Scheer, Chief, Air Force Reserve; Maj. Gen. JacobMoore, Deputy Chief of Staff for Reserve Affairs, U.S. MarineCorps.; Rear Adm. Paul Welling, Chief, Office for Readiness and

88

Reserve of the U.S. Coast Guard; and Lt. Gen. Herbert Temple,Chief, National Guard Bureau. If those witnesses will come forwardin the order in which I called your names.

We did not request written testimony of this panel of witnesses.We would ask that when you proceed that you consider all ques-tions asked to be a request for your personal opinion regarding theissue raised. And starting I think with General Ward then movingdown the table, we would ask you to proceed within the 5-minuterule.

We are glad to have the chairman who indicated that he wantedto hear the testimony of the reservists and the National Guard.

So, General Ward, if you would please start.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM F. WARD, CHIEF, ARMYRESERVE, U.S. ARMY

General WARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to be here. Iwould like to preface my testimony with my personal Anion,which I believe is shared by all of us, that the Montgomery GI Billhas been a tremendous boom to both recruiting and retention inthe Army Reserve and proba'ely throughout all the Reserve compo-nents.

We have several observations. The Montgomery G1 Bill, althoughit can't be proven that it, by itself, has had the only impact on thequality of the force, clearly appears to be the driving, motivatingforce raising the level of the high school diploma graduates to 96percent in the last half of the fiscal year 1987.

Because of the current requirement to have completed 180 daysof service before becoming eligible:, there are, as yet, no numbersthat demonstrate actual utilization of the Montgomery GI Bill;however, it seems rather clear that those percentages would be atleast equivalent to those of the active components.

The soldiers are the same. Their motivation is the same, andindeed, a large number of those people who have come in to theResei ire components opt to leave for the active component and takeadvantage of the version of the bill that applies to those compo-nents. So, we are very pleased with that.

Regarding possible changes, I think one has to be somewhat care-ful about inag precipitous changes that would tend to degradethe Montgomery GI Bill in areas where it is working very well. I goback a bit on the active side and would like to comment on GeneralOno's observations. He stated that in the Army soldiers are gettinginto the program early. I recall that in an earlier part of mycareer, when I ran a family insurance business, we had a philoso-phy that once you have a person signed up, don't give him another30 days to think about it. Soldiers might tend to drift off duringbasic training and find money for beer and cookies more attractivethan something in their long-term advantage.

In any event, the kind of person the Montgomery GI Bill is draw-ing is a fme soldier, and fine men and women are coming into theArmy. Many soldiers with whom I have spoken have stated thatthe Montgomery GI Bill was one of the main reasons they enlistedin the Reserve 'components. They expressed a desire to become eli-gible for the GI bill and to ultimately utilize it just as their parents

93

89

did. Of course, we have a long period of time before we see howthat operates becauze of the delays in time and differences in indi-vidual rates of progresz.

With respect to the three pieces of proposed legislation, I reallydon't believe that the Army has a terrible amount of interest. Ifrankly haven't given much thought about the aviation issue. Theproposed change in this area is not likely to provide any largeamount of assistance to us. Furthermore, we find no particularmilitary necessity for it; however, we do recognize that there mightbe other rectsons other than those from the province of the ArmyReserve for Its adoption.

With respect to the graduate training element and vocationaltraining, General Ono has stated that about the same benefits existfor active and a Reserve component. We agree and think that thisis vitally important. It should be a high priority element. As theReserve component soldiers move into the future and utilize the GIbill, they will look for more kinds of training in areas such as corn-'puter sciences and elsewhere in the great margin between voca-tional training and liberal arts and other classic academic training.Furthermore, it will become increasingly difficult to draw distinc-tions between types of training and education. Nevertheless, theknowledge and wisdom thr.t they will acquire from training shouldapply across the whole spectrum from vocational through graduatetraining. Certainly, the GI bill becomes even more of a retentionenhancing factor because reservists have to stay in the program toutilize it.

Those are my basic comments on the particular pointsand mypersonal opinions. I haven't commented in other areas. Obviously,we are willing to answer any questions that you may have. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOWDY. Admiral Smith?

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. NEALE SMITH, CHIEF OF NAVALRESERVE, U.S. NAVY

Admiral SMITH. Mr. Chairman, regarding the Montgomery GIBill, we love it. If we just take a look at results, since July of 1985in the Naval Reserve, our 6-year enlistments are up from 33 per-cent of our accessions to 48 percent. Our upper middle grade andnon-prior service personnel have increased from 55 percent to 75percent. Our high school diploma graduates are up from 77 percentto 88 percent. Retention is up over what it was prio_ to that point.So, it has got to be a "driver" that happened in July 1985 thatmade that turnaround.

The summary is that it is a strong incentive for us in the NavalReserve for non-prior service personnel to enlist. It ie equally astrong incentive for our fleet experienced personnel, those in whomwe have a big investment in training, to re-enlist. We are seeingthat.

There is also a positive subtlety to this GI billthat is, that themilitary is just not focusing its attention on recruiting and trainingpeople to be warriors to defend this country. They chose a militarythat is concerned about, and is a vehicle for, improving the individ-

9 4

90

ual personally and also in helping in social awareness to make thisa better educated country.

Regarding any possible changes in looking at the bill, I would saythat there are five issues that I would touch on. One is that wewould like to see an expanded use for VA approved courses andVOTECH. We would like to see authorized payment for less thanhalf-time participation. We don't see a need for post-baccalaureateuse of the benefits. I think we ought to eliminate the 180 day re-quirement, and I think we ought to allow more time for people toget their high school diplomas. After all, the intent of it is to en-courage education, avid it would be a shame to put a stopper on itup front on the basis of the high school diploma.

Thank you, sir.Mr. D^wn7. General Moore?

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. JACOB W. MOORE, DEPUTY CHIEF OFSTAFF FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. MARINE CORPS

General MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I also commend the MontgomeryGI Bill as a tremendous plus for us in the Marine Corps. I thinkthat it is probably a little early to get all the results, but I thinkthe indicators are there. We have grown from some 78 percent ofMarine reservists last fiscal year electing this option to 87 percentthis fiscal year who have elected to stay for 6 years'to be eligiblefor the program. So, it has got to be a big impact on retention.

Our attrition rates are down some 6 percent from 1985. I wouldnot come this morning and tell you that that is entirely due to theMontgomery GI Bill, but there is no question in the opinion ofthose in the field, those that are working with it, those that aretalking to these individuals in the units, that it is a big factor.

So, we certainly strongly support the bill as it stands today. Andwhen I look at what changes might be made, we only come recom-mending perhaps two changes in how it affects the Reserve.

The first one we would recommend is the elimination of the 180 -day requirement. In talking to the individual Marine, to put this inperspective, or: the individual that we sign up in the Reserve, hemay go for his individual training, his initial training, and then hecomes back to the Reserve. If we enlist this individual in the June-July time-frame, and he completes his training, but he cannot startthe college year that year without some assistance, the 180-day rolewould cause him to delay his first semester of college. So, we thinkit would be a factor if we could get the guy into the program early.Once we get them involved in the program, then we tend to retainpeople.

The last thing we would do, we would extend it to the vocational-technical taining. We have many Marines that could enhancetheir MOS and their own readiness, because a large part of ourforce is involved in some trade or professional type of :",-)h. So, wethink that would enhance the readiness of our Reserve Force as awhole.

I echo the comments that have been here this morning that wethink it is a tremendous plus for recruiting and retention of ourReserve, and we strongly support it continuing. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DOWDY. General Scheer?

95

91

STATEMENT OF MM. GEN. ROGER P. SCHEER, CHIEF, AIR FORCERESERVE, U.S. %IR FORCE

General SCHEER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Like my colleagues, we in the Air Force think the Montgomery

GI Bill has been a godsend.How do you objectively appraise it? We have looked at the 6-year

enlistment and re-enlistment, and like the Navy, we have seensince the initiation of the bill in June of this year a 15 percent in-crease in 6-year enlistments. In fact, for prior service enlistments,it has gone from 47 to 61 percent; for re-enlistments, 41 to 57 per-cent. So, that's for 6-years commitment. That's probably as good away as we can come up with to objectively appraise the benefits itprovides.

We would like to change the 180 days which seems to be more anadministrative obstacle than anything else. Eligibility for vocation-al technology instruction could perhaps be a significant benefit.The most significant change for us would be allowing for less thanhalf-time participation since the reservist today spends so muchtime in just his Reserve duty. You add his full-time occupation toit, an.d there are simply some people that just cannot go to schoolat a 's,df-time. But if they could take one course, it might fit intotheir schedules.

Just a little off the track, though, our average air crew puts 110days in a year. So, if he is one of these that wants to participate inschool, it would be a burden.

But other than that, it has been, by any standards, a real god-send to recruiting and retention and overs'l education of this coun-try. And we thank you for creating such a bill, and we will be yourstaunchest supporters for any testimonials ;mull need in the futureon it. Thank you.

Mr. Downy. Admiral Welling?

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. PAUL A. WELLING, CHIEF, OFFICEFOR READINESS AND RESERVE, U.S. COAST GUARD

Admiral WELLING. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members. I amdelighted to be here with you this morning.

The Montgomery GI Bill has had a very significant beneficialeffect in our recruitment program for Coast Guard reservists.

As a servicemember who has personally used GI bill benefits atnight school, I feel that it would be good to amend the current lawso that members taking less than half-load could receive some pay-ment. I note that reservists now only receive $70 a month benefitwhen taking a half-load. I don't know how significant a monthlybenefit of a lesser amount would be to a reservist. But I favor par-tial payment for those taking less than half-semester loads.

I believe further that the Coast Guard reservists would lya inter-ested in taking advantage of opportunities for vocational and tech-nical training.

And as the others have commented, I too share the view that itwould benefit us if the reservists were able to begin using thesebenefits earlier than 180 days after their commencement in theprogram.

Thank you.

79-871 0 - 88 - 4 .96

92

Mr. DOWDY. General Temple?

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. HERBERT R. TEMPLE, .IR., CHIEF,NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

General TEMPLE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members ofthe subcommittee. It is my pleasure to appear on behalf of the550,000 members of the National Guard.

We have the highest praise for the Montgomery CI Bill, and aredelighted it was made permanent on June 1, 1987. One purpose ofthis bill is to encourage and sustain membership in all of the Re-serve components. National Guard statistics confirm achievementof this objective. Since its inception, the Army Guard has steadilyincreased to almost 27,000 Montgomery GI Bill participants, andthe Air Guard has almost 10,000. Furthermore, 6-year commit-ments have increased significantly.

A nationwide attitudinal survey was conducted by the NationalGuard Bureau in late 1986. This survey of 15,000 clearly indicatedthe strong recruiting and retention value Qf the GI bill to the per-sonal decisions of National Guard members. The survey showed 58percent of the respondents considered the GI bill a factor in enlist-ment, re-enlistment, and extension decisions. Further, 29 percentindicated they would not have enlisted, and 19 percent would nothave re-enlisted or extended, without the GI bill.

You might be interested in knowing that in the Army NationalGuard that high school diploma graduate increases amounted to 3percent since the inception of the bill. We are now at 85 percent.The Air National Guard has always required a high school diplomafor enlistment.

Since the beginning of the Montgomery GI Bill, the Army Na-tional Guard has seen three times more 6-year extensions or re-en-listments. That is important for us. The Army and the Air Guardare leaders in participation in this program. Close to 73 percent ofthose eligible are becoming members of the GI bill program.

The Army and Air National Guard, by the way, led all of the Re-serve components in retention in 1986.

To increase the incentive value as a recruiting and retentiontooland enhance the simplicity of administratior.we would sup-port the following changes to the Montgomery GI Bill: expand theeducational program to vocational-technical study and post-gradu-ate study; and allow use of the Montgomery GI Bill benefits for lessthan half-time study at a prorated level of payment.

I have reviewed the three bills I was asked to comment on: H.R.2950, H.R. 3180, H.R. 3208. We believe that certain technical cor-rections need to be made to 3180 and 3208 to avoid problems thatwould otherwise arise in implementation. I would be happy to havea member of my legal staff meet with your staff to provide thosedetails.

This program has some subtle benefits to the National Guardand the Nation which I would like to also mention. Individualguard members who have used the Montgomery GI Bill are muchmore likely to remain in their community and view their service toour country as having a lifelong benefit. By affording these youngpeople the opportunity for increased productivity through higher

97

93

education, they may seek more responsibility in the Guard by be-coming non-commissioned or commissioned officers. This source ofyoung leaders is extremely worthwhile to both the Guard and thecommunity.

In closing, on behalf of the Army and the Air National Guard, Iwish to commend Chairman Montgomery and the members of thiscommittee for their diligence in pursuing this most welcome legis-lation. The Montgomery GI Bill benefits in recruiting and reten-tion have surpassed our expectations. I thank you for the opportu-nity to express these views.

Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much, General. We want to thankall of you for your testimony this morning.

Mr. Chairman?Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.After I ask some questions, I am going to have to leave. But I

know the Chiefs of the Reserves will be glad that I am meeting. Weare now meeting today at noon on the authorization bill to run themilitary for fiscal year 1988, so we are meeting at noon. I have gotto get up there and protect the Reserves and the National Guard,and don t let anybody bother any of those functions. And I don'tthink we will.

Mr. Chairman, I think one thing that really the American peopleneed to knowand I try to do it in remarks I make across thecountryand Chrisis that Reserve Forces have improved somuch in the last 10 years that they really are not Reserve any-more. They are front line. And they have taken over a great dealof the responsibility of the Active Forces. And it's a good buy forthe taxpayers in that it costs half as much to keep one of theseunits doing the same thing as an Active Force does as far as thepersonnel is concerned, and that the Congress in effect initiatedgiving new equipment and incentives such as the GI bill to the Re-serve Forces.

And these different chiefs have really come through for us. Andthey are front line totally. They have responsibilities right with theregular forces. And that's good. That's the way it ought to be.

General Ward, as far as the Army Reserve, I saw the Secretaryof the Army the other day, and he was showing me that 95 percentof the Army Reserve now is high school graduates. And I am surethey are going into the educational program.

Are you having any strength level falloffs in any way?General WARD. As a matter of fact, we have had a minor falloff

this year in the troop program units. However, when you lookbehind that falloff, we still have a gain over the end of fiscal year1985. While we didn't quite make the gains we wanted, one of themain reasons we did not -vas the success of the Montgomery GIBill. A large number of Reserve soldiers joined the active compo-nents. Approximately 9,000 juined this year. As these soldiers en-tered the active components they exercised the GI bill. Of course,this necessitates our going out to recruit new ones and enlist them.This is an excellent example of how the total force is working.

Now, that number of 9,000 transfers to the active componentscompares to the pre-1985 historic average of under 5,000 transfersfrom Army Reserve TPUs, a group that comprises about half of the

98

94

total of 600,000 Army Reservists. So, in the last 2 fiscal years thenumber has increased about 2,000 per year.

This is a healthy sign. Once soldiers finish basic training, theylike the Army. They see the attractiveness of the GI bill and see anopportunity to grow and be all they can be. Many of these soldierswill return to the Reserve structure later. When they do return tomost will be much brighter, far more attentive, and much more in-terested in doing things. As I said before, that is why we wantthem to be able to utilize the Montgomery GI Bill for vocationalstudy and, indeed, graduate study. We are particularly hopefultaht our soldiers might acquire skills along the way that wouldenable them to fill vacancies in areas such as nursing.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. 'Thank you. Thank you very much.Admiral Smith, give us those figures again that you gave.Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir.The 6-year enlistments are upthis is since July of 1985from

33 percent of our accessions to 48 percent. Upper middle grade,non-prior service have increased from 5E percent to 75 percent.High school diploma graduates, up from 77 percent to 88 percent. Idon't have retention figures, but our retention has been improvingsince 1985. And the trend continues through this whole period.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Admiral Smith.General Ono mentioned that this was a dynamite bill, and then

you mentioned it is a loved bill. So, we might change it to the "dy-namite, loving Montgomery GI Bill."

[Laughter.]Mr. MONTGOMERY. I notice my time is up.General Moore, on retention, I think some of the problems we

had on the Senate side mainly with staff that the GI bill wouldpush them out and that wouldn't be a retention factor. But what Ihave heard here today is that it is a retention factor. By signing upfor 6 years, that's a pretty good long time to ha'e a young man anda young woman to sign up for 6 years. Are you confident that theretention factor will hold up?

General MOORE. Well, I certainly am very confident because inorder to participate in it, he must stay in. The mere fact that po-tential recruits are willing to opt for 6-year contracts is reflectedby the fact that our 6-year contracts have gone from 34 percent upto 50 percent of our total force. That's a trend that shows that thepeople want to participate, and I am confident that the retentionfactor is there tied to the GI bill mire so perhaps in the Reservethan in the Regular component because of the way the reservisthas to stay in order to be eligible for benefits.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you.General Scheer, what was your statement about master degrees

and Ph.D. degrees? You have a lot of technical people enlisted.General SCHEER. Yes, sir. We would very much like to see the

coverage expanded into the post-baccalaureate field as well as theother end of it on the vocational technology instruction.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you.Admiral, the Coast Guard was a little low on the number that

participate on Active Forces. And do you have the figure on Re-serves of participation?

99

95

Admiral WELLING. Yes, sir. I have a raw number of 700, but Idon't know accurately what the number of participants are. I amtold around one-quarter of our Reserve personnel would be eligibleto participate.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, you have to use the 6-year enlistmentfor the Reserves.

Admiral WELLING. Yes, sir.Mr. MONTGOMERY. General Temple, what about retention of the

Air Guard? That seems to come out that you have got a good figuretherethe retention of the Air Guard signing up, re-enlistment.

General TEMPLE. Sir, the Air Guard is sustaining a retention ratewhich is foremost amongst any of the Reserve components. Weexpect this year somewhere between 12 and 13 percent of losses,which is by far the best record within the Department of Defense.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Can you make your strength levels with theincentives you have got ncw? Well, unless Gramm-Rudman cutsyou back, you have an increase in strength level.

General 'TEMPLE. Both the Army and the Air National Guardwill exceed program strength this year.

Mr. MO/srTGOMERI. You will make your strength level.General TEMPLE. Yes, sir.Mr. MONTGOMERY. General Scheer, you said you had a 15 percent

increase in a 6-year enlistment?General SCHEER. Yes.Mr. MONTGOMERY. And you think part of that is attributed totheGeneral SCHEER. I think it all is. This was from the 6-month

period immediately prior to the implementation of the bill, thatprior service enlistments went from 47 to 61 percent, and thestraight re-enlistments from 41 to 57 percent. So, the only changein that time-frame was the GI bill.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Smith?Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.General Ward, you indicated that 95 percent of your men and

women are high school graduates. How manyGeneral WARD. People who enter the service this year.Mr. Shunt of New Jersey. Okay, right, a clarifying point.General WARD. The figure is low because some of them are older

soldiers.Mr. Shunt of New Jersey. How many of those are college gradu-

ates?General WARD. Pardon?Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. How many of those are college gradu-

ates for whom the New GI Bill would be a moot point?General WARD.' I don't have that number available. Of course,

most of our officers are ineligible upon commissioning because theyalready have college degrees. Furthermore, we have many collegegraduates enlisting in the force. There are many soldiers whowould, of course opt for the GI bill, should they otherwise be eligi-ble. Many soldiers join the Reserve components to get some special-ized kind of training such as medical training for example. I don't

14 0 .

96

have the number of enlisted college graduates; however, I estimatethat is probably about 3 percent of the enlisted force currently hascollege degrees. It might be slightly higher for the new troops whojoined in 1987. I can get a record of this for you.

[The information follows:]In FY 1987 the Army Reserve had a total of 74,589 enlisted gains of whom 2,549

had college degrees. Of the 9,058 officer gains 1,080 were identified as not having afour year college degree.

Mr. &Arm of New Jersey. I appreciate that.Admiral Smith, I think you indicated that 88 percent are high

school graduates.Admiral SMITH. I'm sorry? Eighty-eight percent, yes.Mr. Sham of New Jersey. That kind of information would be

helpful to know, especially as it relates to the transferability issueas well as graduate work as to whether or not that is somethingthat we should provide for.

General WARD. I could add something. A recent study we did ofthe soldiers in Army Reserve troop program units showed that 61percent go on to college or graduate school or require continuingfull or part-time education The number 61 percent of those 300,000soldiers is trementictis.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would be interested in your viewsonoh, Admiral Smith?

Admiral Shunt. We are different from that. In the Navy only 5.5percent of our enlisted personnel have college degrees. If there is aneed in other services for post-baccalaureate degree GI bill applica-tion, then we would hope that would be provided in legislation forapplication by the services. What we foresee is no mobilization re-quirement and minimal application to our enlisted, therefore a"freebie" to those Reserve officers who would get a post-baccalaure-ate degree education anyway.

Mr. Sham of New Jersey. I appreciate your views on transfer-ability. As I think all of you know, H.R. 3180 and other bills wouldprovide for transferring the benefit to child or spouse. GeneralWard, perhaps you would want to start.

General WARD. At this point I think it would be premature tomake a judgment as to whether the resources applicable to trans-ferability would be better used for other incentives related to reten-tion or, rather, for some other type of extension of the programsuch as for post-graduate education. We find a large number of ouryoung officers leave the troop program units because of pressure ofgoing to school. If they were able to continue to utilize the GI billfor post-graduate education, that would be a way to retain them inthe units. In this regard you might wish to consider restructuringGI bill payments proportionally for post-graduate or part time edu-cation. However, right now, absent that kind of an incentive, manyyoung officers have to make a choice between job enhancement inthe civilian area and leaving a troop p rogram unit. With the highlycompetitive society out there, it would be a big plus if we could doa better job in retaining these people.

In my judgment it would be premature to offer any opinion as tohow transferability would affect readiness criteria. It would beworthwhile to carefully observe the impact on readiness as the pro-gram develops.

1o1

97

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, General.Admiral Smith?Admiral SmrrH. I have commented on the post-baccalaureate

piece.As to transferability, I agree with General Ward. We don't have

a hold on it, can't get a feel for how it would apply, and thereforewe would probably be reluctant to put resources toward that untilwe get a better feel for it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Just one footnote. The bill would pro-vide that either the Reserve or the active duty personnel wouldhave to be in the services for 20 years, and it would only be trans-ferable after the 20-year mark, which puts a heavy emphasis on re-tention. So, it would not kick in sooner than that.

General Moore?General MOORE. Well, we don't support the post-graduate part of

it. We think that would only pertain to a few. And we are manpovv-er intensive where 99 percent of our people are the high schoolgrads. So, that's the large force that we are pointing toward retain-ing.

As far as transferability, I too don't know how that would impacton retention. But you know, in order to stay with something for 20years, it is pretty hard to get a guy to sign up for that early on ifhe is going to get it in a 20-year time-frame. So, I don't know howthat would impact on retention. At the present time I think the GIbill, as it presently extends, is adequate in that case.

Mr. Siam of New Jersey. Thank you, General.General Scheer?General SCHEER. Certainly, sir, the transferability would have a

positive effect on retention. I don't think there is any questionabout it. But right now, to be frank with you, there isn't any needfor that. In the Air Force, there is no problem in manning ourforce, and retention is not a problem. So, at this day and age, it isprobably money that we could better spend elsewhere. But whoknows what it would be 3 or 4 years from now. But if I had to saytoday, I'd say, no, I think I would rather save that money for some-thing else.

Mr. Sham of New Jersey. Admiral Welling?Admiral WELLING. Sir, we haven't done any analysis of it. It's

hypothetical. I don't know that it would really contribute much tothe retention of Coast Guard reservists that I know. He or shewould have to serve 20 years before he might have the possibilityof transferring it. It's too distant I think to make a significant im-pression on him or her.

Thank you.General TEMPLE. Sir, during my opening statement, I indicated

my support for advanced degree work that could be providedthrough the GI bill. And I think that is important because ourpeople are coming back to spend the better part of their life in thecommunity. And I think if you look at the educational mores oftoday, more and more people are actively involved in educationbeyond the baccalaureate level. And I think it would serve as anenhancement to remain as a member of the Reserve Forces and es-pecially the National Guard.

102

98

The issue of tray, l'erabilityI suspect I would have to agree withmy associates who have indicated it may be a bit premature tomake a decision. But nevertheless, it's a very attractive issue forthose young people who are starting families and are looking to thepotential for when they retire from the services. The opportunityto be able to transferI would think that that is very compelling.But again, it may be beyond our time here.

Mr. Swim of New Jersey. Part of the rationale as to why I be-lieve it would help in the area of retention is that as each service-man or woman is facing the decision to re-enlistment or opt out ofthe services, this may be just one of those kickers that keep themin. And that decision wouldn't be made when they are recruits. Itwould be made at each transition point. It might make it all thatmore doable.

As I indicated earlier, I think there might be significant savingsin terms of those people whose skills leave when they are out ofthe service, and the cost that it would require to train somebody tofill that position.

General TEMPLE. Yes, especially if youMr. Swim of New Jersey. It news more study unquestionably,

but I think ifGeneral TEMPLE. Especially if you look at the high skills that we

need. The critical shortages in the Army Guard are amongst somevery high technology skills which we are hard-pressed to findpeople to serve in.

So, your point is well taken, and it is certainly worth watching.It may be worthy of application later.

Mr. Swim of New Jersey. Thank you.Could you, General Temple, just reiterate, if you would, and per-

haps provide some more amplification. I believe you said 58 percentof the people said that the GI bill was a factor, at least one of thefactors in enlisting; 19 percent would not have re-enlisted withoutit. Am I misquoting that, or is that correct?

General TEMPLE. That's correct. There is a survey that showedthat 58 percent of the respondents considered the GI bill a factor inenlistment, re-enlistment and extension decisions. Further, 29 per-cent indicated that they would not have enlisted, and 19 percentwould not have re-enlisted or extended, without the GI bill. So,clearly it is evidence of the fact that it is very attractive.

Mr. &lux of New Jersey. Thank you. That kind of statisticalbase will help us. Although the vote did not evidence this, therewere several Members of Congress, when the bill was being dis-cussed in committee, and particularly over in the other committee,the Armed Services Committee, that felt the cost might not justifythe gains. I think this kind of feedback just provides a great deal ofrationale to continue the program and enhance it. Thank you.

Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.If I could, I would like to summarize the testimony that I think I

have heard from each of the panelists. Each of you, it is my under-standing, would agree that the 180 days of completed servicethatthat requirement be eliminated. Is that a correct statement?

[Witnesses indicating affirmative response.]Mr. DOWDY. And also, there appears to be a general consensus

among the panelists today that we should look at allowing chapter

103

99

106 participants to pursue the same type of courses as those al-lowed in the active duty, the chapter 30 program. Is there any dis-agreement in this area?

General MOORE. You're referring to the post-grad type, voc tech?Mr. DOWDY. Yes, post-grad and technical school.General MOORE. And the voc techtechnical does not include

any portion of flight training?Mr. DOWDY. Yes, I'm not asking about flight training, but insofar

as post-grad and technical.General MOORE. We in the Marine Corps, don't object to the post-

grad thing, however, we are not so sure how much we would getout of such a proposal at this time. So, we are not adamantly op-posed to it. It is something we would like to look at.

Mr. DOWDY. All right. I recall your having said that in responseto questions to the chairman.

Admiral?Admiral WELLING. We are not excited about the post-graduate

thing because we think primarily it would be an officer benefit.And our officers have sufficient education. Our concern would bewe would have to pay for it, and we think that our monies couldbetter be spent in other areas. So, we are not enthusiastic aboutthe post-graduate education aspect.

Mr. DOWDY. All right. But with those exceptions, which I recallhaving been pointed out earlier, is it fair for me to say that thetestimony of this panel of witnesses generally favors changes in thelaw to allow the chapter 106 participants to pursue the same typesof courses as those that are allowed under chapter 30?

[Witnesses indicating affirmative response.]Mr. DOWDY. All right. Thank you very much for your testimor

end your participation this morning. Thank you.Our fmal witness todRy is Mr. Michael Schlee, who is represeht-

ing the American Legion. Mr. Schlee was on the trip with themembers of the subcommittee when we went to the different train-ing bases. And we welcome his appearance mn behalf of the Ameri-can Legion.

Mr. Schlee, we have received the Legion's written testimony, andwe would like to have your summary at this time.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SCHLEE, DIRECTOR FOR NATIONALSECURITY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS, THE AMERICAN LEGIONMr. SCHLEE. Okay, I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. It is a privi-

lege to appear before you again. I certainly want to acknowledgethe close cooperation in both enacting the Montgomery GI Bill andmaking it permanent legislation which the American Legion andthe committee has had.

As you stated, I had the opportunity to be on the trip with you.My brief remarks here will be bases on observations I made on thetrip. Our resolutions are not specific on some issues.

As I was reviewing my briefing notes this morning from the trip,there is little or no question in my mind that a revised contribu-tion would, in fact, enhance enrollment based on numerous conver-sations I had on the trip. And of course, the American Legion couldsupport the revised schedule contained in H.R. 3180 or H.R. 3208.

104

100

In the second area concerning an extended enrollment periodmy personal viewwe can support an extended enrollment period.My concern in some of the testimony todayit may be, in fact,counterproductive. I think the chairman's suggestion, if we can getthat decision made very early in consultation VI% parents schoolcounselors and other influencers we can support L.--; provision. Myoverall guidance is to go slow on tinkering with the system.

On the question of transferability, again we have no position.However, I do observe two things. Number one, I think the cost isgoing to have to be looked at. I would see on transferability prob-ably 98 percent of entitlement would be used somewhere along theline compared to about 66 percent for the Vietnam era.

Additionally, we may be creating a mini-generation out therewho will not be motivated because once the transferability occurs,somewhere down the road those kids are not going to be motivatedby educational benefits in any way.

As far as on flight training, we currently have no position onflight training.

Basically that's the summary. I apologize for not being here yes-terday, but we had our national executive committee meetings inIndianapolis, so I flew back in at 5 this morning.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schlee appears on p. 233.]Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Schlee.In your written testimony I noted that the Legion supported an

extension during the period of time during which a servicemembermay make the decision regarding participation in the MontgomeryGI Bill. And then I have heard your comments this morning.

I wonder if this extension would not, in effect, convert the pro-gram from an out-out program to an opt-in program and thusweaken the program. Do you think that participation would go upor down as a result of an extension? I realize you have alreadycommented on this, but I wanted to get your thoughts further.

Mr. SCHLEE. Well, based upon the troops I talked to--that stoodout in the notesthey were disoriented during the first 2 to 7 days.They felt they didn't have time. I think that clearly came acrossfrom the troops.

I personally think there may also be a down side to this becauseonce those troops start mingling with each other, we get the pro-verbial lawyers. And I know from my military service, there is alot of good advice, but a lot of bad advice that troops may havemade up their mind and be convinced of to go other ways.

Mr. DOWDY. Did you hear the testimony of the recruiting chiefsthis morning, General Ono and his panel?

Mr. SCHLEE. Yes, sir.Mr. DOWDY. Based on the testimony that the people from the Air

Forceand I can definitely recall the Air Force people saying thatthey wanted more time. Some of the other witnesses were sayingless time. What are your thoughts on allowing in the law flexibilityfor the different branches to accommodate their own special inter-est in this area? In other words, the Army is doing a heck of a job.But the Air Force says they would like more time. What would beyour thoughts about tailoring the legislation?

Mr. SCHLEE. I think intellectually tailoring the legislation makessense. But I go back to a very old Army principle of KISS, "Keep it

105

101

simple, stupid," because I think if we start altering programs,there may be an awful lot of confusion as kids go to different re-cruiters of various branches.

Mr. DOWDY. All right. Thank you very much.Mr. Smith?Mr. Srarn of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just read,the testimo-

ny. I have no questions. It's very comprehensive. And thank youfor your input.

Mr. SCHLEE. Thank you. It's a pleasure being with you.Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Schlee, for appearing on

behalf of the American Legion. Give my regards to Jimmy Dean.Mr. SCHLEE. I saw him yesterday, sir.Mr. DOWDY. Thank you all for being here today. I think that our

hearings have been very productive, and we appreciate your testi-mony and your input. Thank you again for your participation.

We stand adjourned.[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

106

II

APPENDIX

'"'""E" H. R. 29501ST SESSION

To amend the Montgomery OI Bill with respect to flight training.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 15, 1987

Mr. DOWDY of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was referred jointlyto tho Committees on Veterans' Affairs and Armed Services

A BILLTo amend the Montgomery GI Bill with respect to flight

training.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tines of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FLIGHT TRAINING UNDER THE MONTGOMERY GI

4 BILL IN TITLE 38.

5 (a) IN GENERA.L.Section 1434 of title 38, United

6 States Code, is amended-

7 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after "1673" the

8 following: "(with the exception of subsection (b))";

9 (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection

10 (e); and

(103)

10 7

104

2

1 (3) by adding after subsection (c) the following

2 new subsection:

3 "(d) The Administrator may approve the pursuit of

4 flight training by an individual entitled to basic educational

5 assistance under this chapter if-

6 "(1) such training is-

7 "(A) offered by an institution of higher learn-

8 ing for credit toward a standard college or univer-

9 sity degree;

10 "(B) generally accepted as necessary for the

11 attainment of a recognized vocational objective in

12 the field of aviation; or

13 "(0) generally recognized as ancillary to the

14 pursuit of a vocational endeavor other an avia-

15 tion;

16 "(2) the individual possesses a valid private pilot's

17 license and meets the medical requirements necessary

18 for a commercial pilot's license; and

19 "(3) the flight school courses meet the Federal

20 Aviation Administration standards and are approved by

21 the State approving agency.".

22 (b) AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE.Section 1432 of such

23 title is amended by adding the following new subsection at

24 the end:

HE 140 In

ta

105

3

1 "(J) Each individual who is pursuing a program of eau-

2 catio:. consisting exclusively of flight training approved as

3 meeting the requirements of section 1434(d) of this title shall

4 be paid an educational assistance allowance under this chap-

5 ter to be computed at the rate of 75 per centum of the estab-

6 lished charges for tuition and fees which similarly circum-

7 stanced nonveterans enrolled in the same flight course are

8 required to pay. No educational assistance allowance for any

9 month shall be paid to an individual under this chapter who is

10 pursuing a program of education consisting exclusively of

11 flight training until the Administrator shall have received a

12 certificate from the individual and the institution as to actual

13 flight training received by, and the cost thereof to, the veter-

14 an during that month. In each case the period of entitlement

15 of such individual shall be charged with one month for each

16 payment of an educational assistance allowance to the indi-

17 vidual for such course which is equal to the total amount of

18 monthly educational assistance which the individual is eligi-

19 ble to receive under subsection (a)(1), (b)(1), or (c) of section

20 1415 of this title, as the case may be.".

21 SEC. 2. FLIGHT TRAINING UNDER THE MONTGMOMERY GI

22 BILL IN TITLE 10.

22 (a) IN GENERALSection 2136 of. title 10, United

24 States Code, is amended-

IIR 2950 III

1.V9

106

4

1 (1) in subsection (b), by inserting after "1673" the

2 following: "(with the exception of subsection (b))"; and

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub-

4 section:

5 "(c) The Administrator of Veterans' Affairs may ap-

6 prove the pursuit of flight training by an individual entitled to

7 educational assistance under this chapter if-

8 "(1) such training is-

9 "(A) offered by an institution of higher learn-

10 ing for credit toward a standard college or univer--

11 sity degree;

12 "(B) generally accepted as necessary for the

13 attainment of a recognized vocational objective in

14 the field of aviation; or

15 "(0) generally recognized as ancillary to the

16 pursuit of a vocational endeavor other than aria -

17 tion;

18 "(2) the individual possesses a valid private pilot's

19 license and meets the medical requirements necessary

20 for a commercial pilot's license; and

21 "(3) the flight school courses meet the Federal

22 Aviation Administration standards and are approved by

23 the State approving agency. ".

24 (b) AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE.Section 2131 of such

25 title is amended

CM 2950 III

10

107

5

1 (1) in subsection (b) by striking out "Each" and

2 inserting in lieu thereof "Except as provided by sub-

3 section (d), each"; and

4 (2) by adding the following new subsection at the

5 end:

6 "(d) Each individual who is pursuing a program of edu-

7 cation consisting exclusively of flight training approved as

8 meeting the requirements of section 2136(c) shall be paid an

9 educational assistance allowance under this chapter to be

10 computed at the rate of 75 per centum of the established

11 charges for tuition and fees which similarly circumstanced

12 individuals enrolled in the same flight course are required to

13 pay. No educational assistance allowance for any month shall

14 be paid to an individual under this chapter who is pursuing a

15 program of education consisting exclusively of flight training

16 until the Administrator shall have received a certificate from

17 the individual and the institution as to actual flight training

18 received by, and the cost thereof to, the veteran during that

19 month. In each case the period of entitlement of such individ-

20 ual shall be charged with one month for each $140 which is

21 paid to the individual as an educational assistance allowance

22 for such course.".

1111 2950 111

100TH CONGRESS1ST SESCION

108

.R.3180To amend chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, with respect to the

Montgomery GI Bill.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 6, 1987

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred jointlyto the Committees on Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs

A BILLTo amend chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, with

respect to the Montgomery GI Bill.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PERIOD IN WHICH TO MAKE DECISION TO

4 PARTICIPATE.

5 (a) ACTIVE DUTY PROGRAM.Section 1411(c)(1) of

6 title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking out the

7 second sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

8 "Any such election shall be made at the close of the individ-

9 ual's basic training period (as defined by the Secretary con-

10 cerned in accordance with regulations issued by the Secre-

112

109

2

1 tary of Defense) while on active duty as a member of the

2 Armed Forces.".

3 (b) SELECTED RESERVE PROGRAM. Section

4 1412(d)(1) of such title is amended by striking out the second

5 sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "Any

6 such election shall be made at the close of the individual's

7 basic training period (as defined by the Secretary concerned

8 in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary of De-

9 fense) while on active duty as a member of the Armed

10 Forces.".

11 SEC. 2. AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION.

12 (a) IN GENERAL.The first sentence of section 1411(b)

13 of title 38, United States Code, is amended to read as fol-

14 lows: "The basic pay of any individual described in subsec-

15 tion (a)(1)(A) of this section who does not make an election

16 under subsection (c)(1) of this section shall be reduced by-

17 "(1) $100 for each of the first 12 months that the

18 individual is entitled to such pay; or

19 "(2) $50 for each of the first 24 months that the

20 individual is entitled to such pay,

21 as determined by the individual in accordance with regula-

22 tions which the Secretary concerned shall prescribe.".

23 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT. The first sentence of

24 section 1412(c) of such title is amended to read as follows:

25 "The basic pay of any individual described in subsection

HR 3180 In

:113

110

3

1 (a)(1)(A) of this section who does not make an election under

2 subsection (d)(1) of this section shall be reduced by-

3 "(1) $100 for each of the first 12 months that in-

4 dividual is entitled to such pay; or

5 "(2) $50 for each of the first 24 months that the

6 individual is entitled to such pay,

7 as determined by the individual in accordance with regula-

8 tions which the Secretary concerned shall prescribe.".

9 SEC. 3. TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENTS TO DEPENDENTS.

10 (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 30 of title 38, United

11 States Code, is amended by adding the following new sub-

12 chapter at the end thereof:

13 "Subchapter V-- Transfer of Entitlement to

14 Dependents

15 "§ 1441. Authority to transfer entitlement to dependents

16 "Under regulations prescribed under section 1442(a) of

17 this title, a iaemkr of an Armed Force who is entitled to

18 basic educational assistance may transfer to one or more of

19 such member's dependents all or any part of such member's

20 entitlement to educational assistance under this chapter.

21 "§ 1442. Regulations

22 "(a) The Secretary concerned shall prescribe regulations

23 for the transfer of entitlement under this subchapter, and any

24 transfer of entitlement under this subchapter shall be made in

25 accordance with such regulations.

SIlK 3180 In

.114

111

4

1 "(b) The Administrator shall prescribe regulations for

2 the administration of the transfer of educational assistance

3 entitlement under this subchapter and for the provision of

4 such assistance to the dependents to whom such entitlement

3 is transferred. In prescribing such regulations, the Adminis-

6 trator may place such limits upon the changing and revoking

'7 of transfers of entitlement as the Administrator considers

8 necessary for efficient administration and may provide for any

9 such revocation to be effective at the end of any semester,

10 quarter, or other unit of instruction in which a dependent to

11 whom entitlement had been transferred is engaged in at the

12 time of the revocation.

13 "§ 1443. Status of dependents to whom entitlement is

14 transferred

15 "(a)(1) A dependent to whom entitlement is transferred

16 under this subchapter is entitled to educational assistance

17 under this chapter in the same manner and under the same

18 terms and conditions as the individual from whom the entitle-

19 ment was transferred would be entitled, except that such as-

20 sistance may only be provided-

21 "(A) while the individual from whom the entitle-

22 ment was transferred continues on active duty; or

23 "(B) upon the death, discharge for hardship or

24 service-connected disability of, or completion of 20

25 years of active duty (or in the case of an individual

I1R 3180 III

115

112

5

1 who is entitled to basic educational assistance under

2 section 1412 of this title, a total of 20 years of active

3 duty and duty in the Selected Reserve) by, the indi-

4 vidual.

5 "(2) The period of eligibility of a child to whom educa-

6 tional assistance is transferred under this subchapter shall be

7 determined in accordance with section 1712(a) of this title.

8 "(b) If at individual transfers entitlement under this sec-

9 tion to two or more dependents, the educational assistance

10 payable under this chapter shall be divided (1) in such

11 manner as the individual specifies, or (2) if the individual is

12 deceased or is otherwise unable to specify the manner in

13 which the assistance shall be divided, as determined under

14 regulations prescribed under section 1442 of this title.

15 "(c) Assistance may not be paid under this chapter to an

16 individual who at the time the benefits would otherwise be

17 paid is not a child or spouse or surviving spouse of the ;ndi-

18 vidual who transferred the benefits, notwithstanding that the

19 individual was a dependent at the time the election was made

20 to transfer the benefits.

21 "$1444. Definition

22 "For the purposes of this subchapter, the term 'depend-

23 ent' means-

24 "(1) a child of an individual; and

HR 3180 III

116

*

w

113

6

1 "(2) the spouse or surviving spouse of an

2 individual.".

3 (b) TECHMCAL AMENDMENT.The table of sections at

4 the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the

5 end the following new items:

"Subchapter VTransfer of Entitlement to Dependents

"Sec. 1441. Authority to transfer entitlement to dependents."See. 1442. Regulations."Sec. 1443. Status of dependents to whom entitlement is transferred."Sec. 1444. Definition."

113 3180 III

117

100TH CONGRESS18T SESSION

114

. R. 3208To amend chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, with respect to the

Montgomery GI Bill.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 7, 1987

Mr. Jorizz introduced the following bill; which'was referred jointly to theCommittees on Veterans' Affairs and Armed Services

A BILLTo amend chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, with

respect to the Montgomery GI Bill.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tines of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the "Montgomery GI Bill Im-

5 provement Act of 1987".

6 SEC. 2. AMOUNT OF REDUCTION OF PAY.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.The first sentence of section 1411(b)

8 of title 38, United States Code, is amended to read as fol-

9 lows: "The basic pay of any individual described in subsec-

118

115

2

1 tion (a)(1)(A) of this section who does not make an election

2 under subsection (c)(1) of this section shall be reduced by-3 "(1) $100 for each of the first 12 months that the

4 individual is entitled to such pay; or

5 "(2) $60 for each of the first 20 months that the

6 individual is entitled to such pay,

7 as determined by the individual in accordance with regula-

8 tions which the Secretary concerned shall prescribe.".

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.The first sentence of

10 section 1412(c) of such title is amended to read as follows:

11 "The basic pay of any individual described in subsection

12 (a)(1)(A) of this section who does not make an election under

13 subsection (d)(1) of this section shall be reduced by-

14 "(1) $100 for each of the first 12 months that in-

15 dividual is entitled to such pay; or

16 "(2) $60 for each of the first 20 months that the

17 individual is entitled to such pay,

18 as determined by the individual in accordance with regula-

19 tions which the Secretary concerned shall prescribe.".

20 SEC. 3. TIME PERIOD FOR ENROLLMENT.

21 (a) IN GENERAL.The second sentence of section

22 1411(c)(1) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by

23 striking out "at the time" and all that follows through the

24 period and inserting in lieu thereof "during the period estab-

25 lished by the Secretary concerned but not to exceed 60 days

HR 3208 III

119

116

3

1 after the individual first enters on active duty as a member of

2 the Armed Forces.".

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.The second sentence

4 of section 1412(d)(1) of such title is amended by striking out

5 "at the time" and all that follows through the period and

6 inserting in lieu thereof "during the period established by the

7 Secretary concerned but not to exceed 60 days after the indi-

8 vidual first enters on active duty as a member of the Armed

9 Forces.".

10 (c) TEMPORARY n -GD OF ENROLLMENT.(1) Any

11 individual on active duty in the Armed Forces who made an

12 election under section 1411(c) or 1412(d) of title 38, United

13 States Code, not to receive educational assistance under

14 chapter 30 of such title may enroll in ti.e program established

15 under such chapter during the 60-day period beginning on

16 the date of the enactment of this Act.

17 (2) For purposes of such chapter, any individual who

18 enrolls in such program during such 60-day period shall be

19 considered to have first become a member of the Armed

20 Forces or first entered on active duty as a member of the

21 Armed Forces as of the date on which such enrollment is

22 accomplished.

1IR 3208 III

120

117

4

1 SEC 4. TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENTS TO DEPENDENTS.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.Chapter 30 of title 38, United

3 States Code, is amended by adding the following new sub-

4 chapter at the end thereof:

5 "Subchapter VTransfer of Entitlement to

6 Dependents

7 "111441. Authority to transfer entitlement to dependents

8 "(a) Under regulations prescribed under section 1442(a)

9 of this title, the Secretary concerned may authorize a

10 member of an Armed Force who is entitled to basic educa-

11 tional assistance to transfer to one or more of such membbr's

12 dependents all or any part of such member's entitlement to

13 educational assistance under this chapter.

14 "(b) Subject to regulations prescribed under section

15 1442(b) of this title, a transfer of entitlement under this sec-

16 tion, once authorized, may be made at any time and may be

17 revoked, in whole or in part, or may be modified at any time.

18 "II 1442. Regulations

19 "(a) The Secretary concerned shall prescribe regulations

20 for the transfer of entitlement under this subchapter, and any

21 transfer of entitlement under this subchapter shall be made in

22 accordance with such regulations.

23 "(b) The Administrator shall prescribe regulations for

24 the administration of the transfer of educational assistance

25 entitlement under this subchapter and for the provision of

26 such assistance to the dependents to whom such entitlement

RR 3208 IH

121

113

5

1 is transferred. In prescribing such regulations, the Adminis-

2 tutor may place such limits upon the changing and revoking

3 of transfers of entitlement as the Administrator considers

4 necessary for efficient administration and may provide for any

5 such revocation to be effective at the end of any semester,

6 quarter, or other unit of instruction in which a dependent to

7 whom entitlement had been transferred is engaged in at the

8 time of the revocation.

9 "111443. Status of dependents to whom entitlement is

10 transferred

11 "(aX1) A dependent to whom entitlement is transferred

12 under this subchapter is entitled to educational assistance

13 under this chapter in the same manner and under the same

14 terms and conditions as the individual from whom the entitle-

15 ment was transferred would be entitled, except that such as-

16 sistance may only be provided-

17 "(A) while the individual from whom the entitle-

18 ment was transferred continues on active duty; or

19 "(B) upon the death, discharge for hardship or

20 service-connected disability of, or completion of 20

21 years of active duty by, the individual.

22 "(2) The period of eligibility of a child to whom educe-

23 tional assistance is transferred under this subchapter shall be

24 determined in accordance with section 1712(a) of this title.

119

6

1 "(b) If an individual transfers entitlement under this sec-

2 tion to two or more dependents, the educational assistance

3 payable under this chapter shall be divided (1) in such

4 manner as the individual specifies, or (2) if the individual is

5 deceased or is otherwise unable to specify the manner in

6 which the assistance shall be divided, as determined under

7 regulations prescribed under section 1442 of this title.

8 "(c) Assistance may not be paid under this chapter to an

9 individual who at the time the benefits would otherwise be

10 paid is not a child or spouse or surviving spouse of the indi-

11 vidual who transferred the benefits, notwithstanding that the

12 individual was a dependent at the time the election was made

13 to transfer the benefits.

14 "§ 1444. Definition

15 "For the purposes of this subchapter, the term 'depend-

16 ent' means-

17 "(1) a child of an individual; and

18 "(2) the spouse or surviving spouse of an

19 individual.".

20 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.The table of sections at

21 the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the

22 end the following new items:

v "Subchapter VTransfer of Entitlement to Dependents

"Sec. 1441. Authority to transfer entitlement to dependents."Sec. 1442. Regulations."Sec. 1443. Status of dependents to whom entitlement is transferred."Sec. 1444. Definition.".

SHE 3208 M.

123

1

120

7

3EC. 5. COMPENSATION IN LIEU OF BENEFITS.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.Subchapter IV of chapter 30 of title

3 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the

4 following:

5 "§ 1437. Compensation payment

6 "(a) The Administrator shall make a payment in an

7 amount described in subsection (c) to an individual-

8 "(1) who is entitled to educational assistance

9 under this chapter; and

10 "(2) with respect to whom the Administrator has

11 made a determination that the individual has become

12 so physically or mentally disabled that he is unable to

13 utilize such educational assistance.

14 "(b) In the event of the death of an individual who is

15 entitled to educational assistance under this chapter the Ad-

16 ministrator shall pay the amount described in subsection (c)

17 to the living person or persons first listed below:

18 "(1) The beneficiary or beneficiaries designated by

19 such individual under such individual's Servicemen's

20 Group Life Insurance policy.

21 "(2) The surviving spouse of the individual.

22 "(3) The surviving child or children of the individ-

23 ual, in equal shares.

24 "(4) The surviving parent or parents of the indi-

25 vidual, in equal shares.

HR 3208 III

124

..

121

8

1 If there is not such person living, the Administrator shall pay

2 such amount to the individual's estate.

3 "(c) The amount of any payment made under this sec-

4 tion shall be equal to the amount reduced from the individ-

5 ual's pay under section 1411(b) or 1412(c).

6 "(d) Any individual to whom a payment is made under

7 this section shall not be entitled to any educational assistance

8 under this chapter on and after the date of such payment.".

9 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.The table of sections at

10 the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the

11 end the following new item after the item added by section

12 103(b) of this Act:

"1437. Compensation payment.".

IIR 3208 III

125

JOHNSD013

100TH CONGRESS1sT.SEssIoN

122

H. R. 3464

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HLC

Mr. JOHNSU.: of South Dakota introduced the following bill; whichwas-referred to the Committee on

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, with respect to thcMontgomery G.I. Bill, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

126

123

JOHNSD013

2

1 SECTION 1. AMOUNT OF REDUCTION OF PAY.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.--The first sentence of section 1411(b) of

3 title 38, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

4 ''The basic pay of any individual described in subsection

5 (a)(1)(A) of this section who does not make an election under

6 subsection (c)(1) of this section shall be reduced by --

7 "(1) $100 for each of the first 12 months that the

8 individual is entitled to such pay; or

9 "(2) $60 for each of the first 20 months that the

10 individual is entitled to such

11 as determined by the individual in accordance with

12 regulations which the Secretary concerned shall prescribe..

13 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The first sentence of section

14 1412(c) of such title is amended to read as follows: "The

15 basic pay of any individual described in subsection (a)(1)(A)

16 of this section who does not make an election under

17 subsection (d)(1) of this section shall be reduced by --

18 "(1) $100 for each of the first 12 months that

19 individual is entitled to such pay; or

20 "(2) $60 for each of the first 20 months that the

21 individual is entitled to such pay,

22 as determined by the individual in accordance with

23 regulations which the Secretary concerned shall prescribe..

24 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF PROGRAM OF EDUCATION FOR CERTAIN

25 PURPOSES.

79-871 0 - 88 - 5 127

124

JOHNSD013

3

1 (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 2131(c)(1) of title 10, United

2 States Code, is amended to read as follows:

3 "(c)(1) Educational assistance may only be provided

4 under this chapter for pursuit of a program of education that

5 is an approved program of education for purposes of chapter

6 30 of title 38....

7 (b) AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE FOR APPRENTICESHIP.--Section

8 2131 of such title is amended- -

9 (1) in subsection (b), by striking out "Each" and

10 inserting in lieu thereof "Except as provided in

11 subsection (d), each; and

12 (2) by adding at the end the following new

13 subsection:

14 "(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amount

15 of the monthly educational assistance allowance payable to an

16 individual pursuing a full-time program of apprenticeship or

17 other on-job training under this chapter is --

18 "(A) for each of the first six months of the

19 individuals pursuit of such program, 75 percent of the

20 monthly educational assistance allowance otherwise

21 payable to such individual under this chapter;

22 "(13) for each of the second six months of the

23 individual's pursuit of such program, 55 percent of such

24 monthly educational assistance allowance; and

25 ''(C) for each of the months follOwing the first 12

. 12 8

125

JOHNSD013

4

1 months of the individuals pursuit of, such program, 35

2 percent of such monthly educational assistance allowanw.t...

3 (2) In any month in which an individual pursuing a

4 program of education consisting of a program of

5 apprenticeship or other on-the-job training fails to complete

6 120 hours of training, the amount of monthly educational

7 assistance allowance payable under this chapter to the

8 individual shall be limited to the same proportion of the

9 applicable full-time rate as the number of hours worked

10 during such.month, rounded to the nearest 8 hours, bears to

11 120 hours.

12 "(3) For each month that an individual is paid a monthly

13 educational assistance allowance under this chapter, the

14 individuals entitlement under this chapter shall be charged

15 at the rate of --

16 "(A) 75 percent of a month in the case of payments

17 made in accordance with paragraph (1)(A) of this

18 subsection;

19 "(B) 55 percent of a month in the case of payments

20 made in accordance with paragraph (1)(8) of this

21 subsection; and

22 "(C) 35 percent of a month in the case of payments

23 made in accordance with paragraph (1)(C) of this

24 subsection....

..129

126

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TIM JOHNSONBEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENTTHE HONORABLE WAYNE DOWDY, CHAIRMAN

OCTOBER 14, 1987

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the

opportunity of appearing before you today to discuss amendments to the

Montgomery GI Bill. I would like to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for

holding this hearing. The Montgomery GI Bill was signed into law this year,

and our chairman of the full committee is to be congratulated for his

unceasing work in support of the men and women who make up our Armed

Services. The GI Bill has been one of the best investments in the future the

federal government has ever made. I'm proud to say that my father took

advantage of the GI Bill to attend college, and this personal association with

the GI Bill has instilled in me a great respect both for the veteran, and for

education, and for the federal government. Countless other veterans have

used the GI Bill to get their education, and we are here to make sure all

military personnel in the future receive the same fair treatment and benefits.

I have sponsored a bill, HR 3464, which would address two specific

areas. The first has been suggested by the people the program is intended to

benefit, the military personnel. It is also being addressed by other members

of this committee. The provision would allow service men and women to

have smaller amounts deducted from their pay for a longer period of time.

As you can understand, Mr. Chairman, this would ease the burden for the

individual without reducing the overall amount paid into the educational

program.

The second area addressed is that of education benefits of members of

the Selected Reserve Forces. My bill would allow any member of the

Selected Reserve to use the GI Bill the same way veterans under title 38 can.

Currently members of the Reserve cannot use the GI Bill to attend vocational

or technical school. Many of these recruits join the Reserves specifically to

take advantage of the excellent technical training they receive; they are

130

127

unfortunately prohibited from using the GI Bill to continue that technicaltraining at vocational schools. This adjustment would simply put them onequal footing with other veterans and military personnel, ensuringconsistency in administration of the education program and fairness intreatment of all military personnel. Since most of these Reserve forceswould opt for vocational training instead of college, and since they are parttime personnel, the amount of an individual's entitlement would be reduced.This same section wa. Liopted last year as an amendment to HR 3747 by Mr.Daschle, the former chairman of this subcommittee. That bill was marked upout of this subcommittee and subsequently by the full committee. I wouldrespectfully request, Mr. Chairman, that you give the same consideration tothese members of the Selected Reserve as is given to other patriotic servicemen and women.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity toappear before you and the subcommittee. I congratulate you for holding thishearing on these needed amendments, and I hope we can act soon to put allmilitary personnel on an equal footing regarding educational benefits.

131

128

TESTIMONY BY REPRESENTATIVE DUNCAN HUNTER (CA-45)

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCAYION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT

October 14, 1917

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, as a'

Vietnam Veteran, I appreciate having this opportunity to speak for may

fellow veterans to address an oversight which significantly affects

those who have so faithfully served their country. I believe that

Congress must be diligent in insuring that we provide for those who

have sacrificed so much in the defense of the United States.

As you know, the Vietnam Era GI bill was initiated to protect the

future interests of, and provide incentives to individuals'entering

the armed forces. Over the years, these incentives have helped

attract the "best of the best," to all branches of the military, so

that the United States can continue tO enjoy the security and

democratic freedoms established by our forefathers.

On June 1, 1987, the President approved H.R. 1085, the New

Montgomery GI Bill Continuation Act, as Public Law 100-48. While the

New GI Bill, overall, has proven to be a popular and effective

program, it has, unfortunately, left a loophole through which certain

veterans have fallen - leaving them unable to collect the educational

assistance they were promised upon entering the service.

1.32

129

-2-

Currently, under the timetable of the Old GI Bill, education

benefits are set to e*pire on December 31, 1989. Those who are

eligible to collect under the old bill are veterans who served on

active duty for more than 180 continuous days, after January 1, 1955

but before January 1, 1977, and who have been honorably discharged.

Also, eligible are those who have served during the same period but

who served for 180 days or less because of a service connected

disability. Finally, individuals who contracted with the armed forces

and were enlisted in a reserve unit prior to January 1, 1977, and who

served on active duty for more than 180 days - beginning within 12

months after January 1, 1977 - are eligible.

Each eligible person is entitled to 1 A 1/2 months of educational

assistance, for each month of active duty service given after

January 31, 1955, up to 45 months. Simply stated, veterans who

entered the service prior to January 1, 1977, or after that date due

to the delayed entry program, who are honorably discharged from active

auty after June 1, 1966, are entitled to educational benefits for

10 years after release but no later than December 31, 1989.

Now, under the New GI Bill, individuals who have enlisted,

re-enlisted or maintained status in the active reserves (for no less

than 6 years), after June 30, 1985, are entitled to educational

assistance benefits of up to $5,040 for undergraduate training at

institutes of higher learning. This bill was established to assist in

the readjustment of veterans to civilian life following their

separation from the military, and to assist in recruiting and

retaining high quality personnel by the armed forces.

133

130

-3-

However, this legislation has overlooked those individuals who,

because of their retirement date, will be unable to collect their full,

educational benefits. For example, if a person retired from the

service on May, 1988, he is not eligible to collect educational

benefits under the new program. Furthermore, the benefits he is now

collecting under the old GI Bill expire on December 31, 1989. This

means that he can collect only eighteen months of educational

assistance:

Mr. Chairman, I feel we must address this matter. The individuals

hit hardest by these provisions are those who stayed in the armed

forces and continued to serve their country. The only fault of these

individuals is that they should have retired earlier so that they

could collect their benefits. : do not believe that such dedication'

and loyalty to the United States should be repaid with a penality.

Without action, those who did not retire on time will suffer from a

grave inequity.

As President Reagan so eloquently stated in his Memorial Day

address, "...each died for a cause he considt ad more important than

his own life. They didn't volunteer to die; they volunteered to

defend values for which men have always been willing to die if need

be, the values which make up what we call civilization." I believe if

we do not stand by those who have so selflessly stood by their

country, if we abandon the promises made to those who would perish to

defend this great nation, then surely, we have lost the meaning of the

words gratitude and justice.

134

131

-4-

Finally, one additional point on a similar note. It is my

understanding that the Senate may soon Le attaching a rider to S.9,

the Service Disabled Veterans Benefits Improvement Act, to aoend

title 38, Chapter 34, United States Code. The problem concerns the

1976 repeal of the Vietnam Era GI Bill and its affect on 1977 & 1978

service academy graduates. The proposed amendment would restore

GI eligibility, with regard to educational benefits, to those service

academy cadets and midshipman who had entered the armed forces and had

made seven-year active duty commitments prior to the 1976 repeal.

Furthermore, it is estimated that restoration of these benefit .1d

be very low on the cost scale totaling less than $1 million, I would

urge that when this issue goes to conference, that the House support

such an amendment.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I feel that we need to ensure that those who

have given so much to their country not be penalized for their

service. I would hope that, in the coming months, we can correct this

inequity.

Mr. Chairman, and honorable Members of this Subcommittee, I

appreciate your time and attention. Thank you.

135

132

ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY

aaas woLSO OUI. (VAPID ARLINGTON VIIINGIN/A 22201.3301 170711700

STATEMENT OF

COLONEL EDWARD P. SMITH, USA RET.

DIRECTOR, MEMBERSHIP SERVICES

ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAININC AND EMPLOYMENT

HOUSE VETERANS' AFFAIRS COLMITTFE

14 October 1987

136

1.33

Mk. Chairman. Members of this Subcommittee. I am Colonel Edward P. Suith,US Army Retired, Director of Membership Services, of the Association of theUnited States Army. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of our170,000 members to this Subcommittee.

The five issues incorporated in R.I. 2950, R.R. 3208 and R.R. 3180 areimportaat considerations which deserve full debate. We appreciate yourinterest in soliciting out positions on these and related issues of importanceto these who volunteer to serve our country in its Armed Forces.

Of the five issues -- flight training; revision of the contributionschedule; extension of the period in which to enroll; transferability ofentitlements to dependents; and compensation payment AUSA members stronglysupport three. At this time I will discuss each.

First, compensation payment. In an earlier hearing, on H.R. 3001, theAssociation indicated its full support to legislation that would have theAdministrator of the Veterans Administration pay a death benefit, in the formof a stipend, to beneficiaries of any Armed Forces member entitled toeducational assistance under the HOntgomery CI Bill who died while serving onactive duty. Because R.R. 3208 incorporates the previously proposed action andwisely expands the list of categories of eligibles for compensation payment tothose Armed Forces members who had intended to take advantage of educationalassistance, but subsequently were unable to do so because of physical or mentaldisability, or death. we support, for equality and tmmanitarian reasons,legislative actions guaranteeing compensation payment to entitled survivors 'orthe individual's estate.

Second, a revised contribution schedule. The practice of requiring thosewho volunteer to serve their country in its Armed Forces to make a monthlycontribution toward their educational training after military service is onethat began with the "Post Vietnam Era Veterans' Education Assistance Program."The Association of the United States Army was and continues to be adamantlyopposed to this requirement. However, if such contributions must remain amandatory feature, the Association of the United States Army supports providingalternative contribution schedules, so the recruit may choose a payment method.In addition to offering a reduction in pay of $100 per month for 12 months,AUSA recommends offering a payment schedule of $60 per month for 20 months, asincluded in H.R. 3208.

Third, the enrollment period. While large numbers of present recruits, intheir very first days on active duty, continue to respond positively to theinformation provided by recruiters, school counsellors. family members, peersand cadre personnel about the importance to enroll and remain enrolled in theCI Bill educational assistance program, the Association of the United StatesArmy supports legislation to allow election to participate to be made as lateas the closing date of basic training.

137

134

While we concur fully in the Army's ,turrent pL:ctice to enroll at the

reception station, at the same time that new personnel and finance records are

created, we nevertheless believe an opportunity should be available at the end

of basic training to enroll any trainee who, for any reason, had not previously

enrolled.

Before summarizing our position regarding the three bills and concluding,

I would like to take advantage of your offer to add to my testimony one other

area which we believe would improve the effectiveness of the Hontgozery CI

Bill. That is to allow Selected Reserve eligibles, under Chapter 106, to use

benefits for the same programs as Active Duty eligibles are provided under

Chapter 30. Limiting Selected Reserve eligibles to institutions of higher

learning for undergraduate study and not allowing pursuit of

vocational-technical programs or graduate stwly is an inequity that fails to

accept the realities of today's Total Force concept of the Armed Forces.

to:

In summary, OSA members welcome and strongly urge passage of legislation

-- provide a compensation payment, under the conditions stated in H.R.

3208,

- - permit enrollees to choose a contribution scheduled as proposed in H.R.

3208.

-- allow recruits to make a final decision in Which to participate(enroll) at the conclusion of basic training, as included in H.R. 3180,

and

- - amend the current bill to make provisions for the Selected Reserve more

equitable in comparison with those provided to Active Duty eligibles,

particularly as pertaining to attendance at vocational-technical schools

and graduate schools.

138

NINIIMI

135

STATEMENT

BY

NELSON L. FINK

LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT

MILITARY AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

AIR FORCS SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE

ON

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT

OF

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON

H.R. 2950

U.R. 3180

H.R. 3208

OCTOBER 14, 1987

Air Force Sergeants AssociationINTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, POST OFFICE BOX 50. TEMPLE HILLS. 4) 2070

139

136

Mr. Chairman and.dietinguiehed members of the subcommittee, thank you for the op-

portunity to present the viewa of the Air Force Sergeants Association, with re-

spect to the proposed changes to the Montgomery G.I. Bill.

As an incentive to attract quality young people into military service and a prud-

ent investment in our nation's human resources, it would be difficult to design a

better program than the New C.I. Bill; however, we feel both H.R. 3180 introduced

by Mr. Smith and H.R. 3208 introduced by Mr. Jontz warrant serious consideration

as enhancements to make the education benefits more attractive and affordable.

As stated in previous appearances before this subcommittee, we support reducing

the member's contribution to $60 and spreading the payments out over a 20-month

period. The 60/20 formula is more affordable and insures the member will fulfill

his or her financial obligation to the G. I. Bill before any education assistance

is authorized.

Based on our observations, as member of Chairman Montgomery's fact finding trip,

extending the consideration period for participation in the C.I. Bill, from the

first 14 days of basic training to the end of the basic training period, would

give the recruit more time to consider such an important decision. Since the peri-

od of basic military training varies between services, we recommend the period of

consideration be extended through the fourth week of basic military training to

maintain uniformity between services. Further, we would recommend, recruits who

do not initially choose to participate in the G. I. Bill program during the estab-

lished enrollment period be given an opportunity to enroll at a later date.

:1.40

137

Our association strongly supports the provision of H.R. 3180 to permit service

secretaries to authorize transferability of C. I. Bill benefits to eligible depend-

ents if the service member is discharged under hardship or disability conditions

or complete 20 years of active military service.

Additionally, our membership will support the provisions ,f H.R. 2950 to pay an

educational assistance allowance to eligible individuals pursuing an approved

flight training program.

This concludes my statement, and again, thank you for this opportunity to appear

before this subcommittee. I am prepared to respond to any questions you or your

distinguished colleagues wish toask.

141

138

STATEMENT BY

CAPT CHARLES h. BUESENER

U.S. NAVAL RESERVE

DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION

NAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION

TO THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERAN'S AFFAIRS

14 OCTOBER 1987

142

139

MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THE NAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION APPRECIATES

THE COMMITTEE'S INVITATION TO PRESENT OUR VIEWS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED

LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD UPGRADE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NEW GI BILL.

THE NEW GI. BILL HAS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED ITS EFFECTIVENESS TO THE NAVAL

RESERVE AND REMAINS THE PRIME MOVER IN OUR RECRUITING AND RETENTION EFFORTS.

ALMOST SIX THOUSAND NAVAL RESERVISTS ARE CURRENT PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROGRAM AND

THE TREND CONTINUES ITS UPWARD COURSE. PARTICIPATION, IN FACT, HAS MORE THAN

DOUBLED IN THE PAST YEAR. ON THE RETENTION SIDE OF THE EQUATION SINCE THE NEW

GI BILL WAS ENACTED, OUR LONG TERM SIX-YEAR RE-ENLISTMENTS HAVE DRAMATICALLY

INCREASED.

THESE DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENTS COULD NOT HAVE COME AT A MORE OPPORTUNE TIME.

THE NAVAL RESERVE HAS SEEN, OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, INCREASED TASKMG

AND ASSIGNMENT OF WARTIME RESPONSIBILITIES AS THE TOTAL FORCE HAS GROWN IN SIZE

AND COMPLEXITY. THE NAVAL RESERVE FORCE TODAY PROVIDES 100% OF THE COMBAT

SEARCH AND RESCUE, 100% OF THE LIGHT-ATTACK HELICOPTER SQUADRONS, 100% OF US

BASED LOGISTIC SUPPORT SQUADRONS, 86% OF THE CARGO-HANDLING BATTALIONS, 68% OF

THE NAVAL MOBILE CONSTRUCTION BATTALIONS. IN THE HYPER-CRITICAL AREA OF

ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE, THE NAVAL RESERVE PROVIDES 35% OF THE LONG RANGE

MARITIME PATROL SQUADRONS, 21% OF THE ASW HELICOPTER SQUADRONS AND 26 AN/AAW

FRIGATES.

BY THE EARLY 1990'S THE NAVAL RESERVE WILL BE THE 10TH LARGEST NAVY IN THE

143

140

WORLD. I WOULD HASTEN TO POINT OUT THAT THE NAVAL RESERVE, IN ADDITION TO

PROVIDING WARTIME SURGE CAPABILITY IS ALSO A PEACETIME "FORCE MULTIPLIER" WITH

RESERVE AIRCREWS AND SHIPS ROUTINELY DEPLOYED FULFILLING THE PEACE TIME

OPERATIONAL COMMITMENTS IN SUPPORT OF OUR NATIONAL MARITIME OBJECTIVES.

THE NAVAL RESERVE IS A HIGWTECH FORCE WITH QUALIFYING TRAINING BEING BOTH

EKPENSIVE AND LENGTHY.

As A RESULT OF THE NEW GI BILL OUR LONGTERM RE-ENLISTMENTS ARE INCREASING

AND, FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PENETRATE BOTH THE JUNIOR COLLEGE

MARKET AS WELL AS THE UPPER MENTAL GROUPS WHO INTEND TO CONTINUE THE EDUCATION.

IN REGARD TO SPECIFICS REGARDING PENDING LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE MONTGOMERY

GI BILL:

O HR 2950 THE NRA SUPPORTS THIS EXPANSION OF COVERAGE AND FURTHER

RECOMMENDS THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO EXPAND COVERAGE TO THOSE TYPES

OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING THAT WOULD PROVIDE IMMEDIATE READINESS INCREASE

FOR THE INDIVIDUAL IN RELATED MILITARY SKILL REQUIREMENTS.

Q HR 3180/3208 THE NRA SUPPORTS BOTH ?ROPOSED BILLS CONDITIONALLY PROVIDED

THAT THE TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENT TO DEPENDENTS SECTIONS INCLUDE

PROVISIONS FOR ENTITLEMENT TRANSFER OPTIONS ARE ALSO FULLY APPLICABLE TO

VESTED RESERVE FORCE PERSONNEL.

AGAIN, THE NAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION IS MOST APPRECIATIVE OF MIS

OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS OUR VIEWS, AND APPEAR BEFORE THIS SUBCOMMITTEE ONCE

AGAIN.

144

141

STATEMENT ON THE

EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPLEMENTATIONOF THE

MONTGOMERY G.I. BILL

H.R. 2950, H.R. 3180 AND H.R. 3208

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENTVETERANS' AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

14 OCTOBER 1987

BY

ROBERT W. NOLAN

NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION

Not to be released until made publicby the House Committee on .Veterans' Affairs

40*

FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATIONServing Career Enlisted Personnel of the

U.S. NAVY U.S. MARINE CORPS U.S. COAST GUARD1303 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 785,2768

145

142

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished Committee, Iam Robert W. Nolan, National Executive Secretary of the FleetReserve Association. The FRA is a national military organizationcomprised of over 153,000 enlisted personnel of the United StatesNavy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard, active duty and retired. Asa retired Navy '..nief Petty Officer, it is my privilege to speakfor not only my Shipmates of the FRA but for all active dutyenlisted personnel of the three Sea Services regarding theimplementation and'effectiveness of the Montgomery G.I. Bill.

Mr. Chairman, since the overwhelming success of the WorldWar II G.I. Bill, the Fleet Reserve has been a steady andpositive advocate of a peacetime program which affords youngAmericans the opportunity to obtain a higher education inexchange for a stated period of service in our armed forces. Ourphilosophy has been a little different than most groups in thatwe represent enlisted Sea Service personnel who by and largeserve a full military career. Therefore, the thrust of ourendeavors has been to assure that the enlisted military career-ist, who is often a "veteran" twice over, receives equitabletreatment in pursuing a higher education and training under theG.I. Bill.

The Fleet Reserve Association achieved landmark successtwenty-two years ago in its G.I. Bill endeavors when it convincedU.S. Senator Ralph W. Yarborough (D-TX) to amend his billcreating the Cold War G.I. Bill (S-9) to insert the word "LAST"before discharge in establishing that G.I. Dill's terminationdate. Heretofore, the World War II and Korean G.I. Bills hadtermination dates of ten years after a service person's firstdischarge after the date of qualifying for the G.I. Bill bene-fits. Thus, for the first time, a service person could serve amilitary career and have the readjustment assistance afforded bythe G.I. Bill when he returned to civilian pursuits. A militarycareerist did not have to abandon his military career to receivea higher education under his earned entitlements of the G.I.Bill.

In 1978, as this Subcommittee considered terminating theCold War G.I. Bill and instituting the Veterans EaucationalAssistance Program, "VEAP" in its stead, the Fleet ReserveAssociation was the only witness to appear before you and requestthat you consider the military careerists in re-establishing anew termination date for benefits of the Cold War G.I. Bill.Needless to day, in the attempt to achieve the All-Volunteerservice force the wishes of the Administration were granted andthe FRA lost its fight to protect the enlisted careerist as thelaw was amended with a new termination date of 31 December 1989.

In the 98th U.S. Congress, as this Committee recognized thatthe Veterans' Education Assistance Program was not achieving thedesired success it should, the FRA t,:ain called for a peacetimeG.I. Bill encompassing equitable treatment for the enlistedmilitary careerist. You are fully :a.-tliar with that strugglefor you, with Chairman Montgomery in the vanguard, laboreddiligently to achieve the final enactment of permanent legisla-tion authorizing the Montgomery G.I. Bill. The Fleet ReserveAssociation is proud of its endeavors in behalf of the legisla-tion. We bow to no other public grout as having a moremeaningful role of effective support is the Montgomery G.I.Dill's enactment particularly in the United States Senate.

143

ACTIVE DUTY PERSONNEL'S EVALUATIONOF THE /03NTOOMERY G.I. BILL

The acceptability of the peacetime G.I. Bill test and theMontgomery G.I. Bill is clearly evidenced by the enlistment andretention of personnel of high quality and caliber. Statistics,by any measure, prove the effectiveness of the program in boththe regular and reserve components.

But even more convincing than the overwhelming numbers, arethe comments of active duty personnel we have talked wit.`..Thanks to Chairman Montgomery, the FRA had the opportunity lastFebruary to experience the New G.I. Bill's c,cceptability amongrecruits of all Services. As you know, we were invited toaccompany members of this committee on a two-day field trip, 12-13 February 1987, to military recruit training centers at FortKnox, Ky i Lack,,and AFB, Tex..: Orlando. Fla.: and Parris Island,S.C. nese ViFILd enabled us to leara first hand what thepotential beneficiaries of the ('.L Bill thought of the Program'sprovisions. We asked those wno elected to participate in theprogram why they did so. Conversely, we asked the non-participants why they did not participate. Across the board,regardless of service, we received the same basic reasons fornon-participation. The reasons given in their order of prioritywere:

The feeling they could not afford to contri-bute the required $100 a month for 12 months.Almost all said if this contribution was asmaller amount over a longer period (e,g. 550a month for 24 months) they would haveparticipated.

Many felt they did not have enough time inwhich to consider their decision.

A few felt that they were going to make themilitary a career and would not need acollege education.

No refund of the 51,200 contribution seemedto bother a few recruits. It is hard toargue against the common sense logic that itis their money. I suggest that we considerreturning the 51,200, less interest, to themwhen they can no longer qualify to use theirG.I. Bill.

The recruits felt that the "transferability"provision, where the unused G.I. Bill benefitscould be passed on to a dependent, would make thelaw more equitable and increase enrollments in theprogram.

In expressing these views the recruits' candor was evident. Theyasked pointed questions of the Chairman and Committee members. Itwas a most revealing field trip for we learned not only of theG.I. Bill's success, we also learned how to improve the programwith practical and yet minor adjustments.

FRA'S VIEWS ON THE PENDINGLEGISLATION: H.R. 2950, H.R. 3180 AND H.R. 3208

The Fleet Reserve Association compliments this Subcommitteefor its astuteness in drafting the legislation to improve theMontgomery G.I. Bill's implementation and effectiveness. Youhave addressed all of the negative reasons the recruits gave uslast February for the non-participation in the peacetime G.1.Bill. The provisions of H.R. 2950 to allow individuals to use

2

147

144

their benefits of the Montgomery G.Z. Bill to pursue flighttraining are basic and contain requirements to protect the

program's future integrity from abuse.

The liberalizations offered by H.R. 3180 and those of H.R.3208 are similar and assure that the Montgomery G.I. Bill becomesin practice a true peacetime G.I. Bill that enhances recruiting

and retention for both the regular and reserve components of ourArmed Forces. After carefully analyzing the provisions of eachbill, the Fleet Reserve Association must wholeheartedly endorse

H.R. 3208 because its comprehensive provisions address the

correction of the current negative features of the peacetime G.I.Bill law in a more practical manner. The temporary enrollmentperiod in H.R. 3208 can be viewed as a re- enlistment incentive.giving careerists a second opportunity to take advantage of the

Montgomery G.I. Bill.

RECOMMINDATIONS TO rrAton H.R. 3208BY ADDING TWO AMENDMENTS

The Fleet Reserve Association strongly recommends theaddition of two provisions to H.R. 3208 vnich will safeguardcertain careerists benefits. Please recognize that in theattempt to achieve success in the All Volunteer Force, theenlisted military careerist has been the helpless victim of VEAP,

various bonus programs and vacillating compensation policies.

Based upon this experience, the military careerist perceives he

is the victim of the erosion of benefits.

A very large percentage of active duty personnel recognized

the Veterans' Education Assistance Program for exactly what it

was, a very poor imitation of the Cold War G.I. Bill. Therefore,

they did not elect to participate in that education sham.

Because of this, they are not included in the temporary enroll-

ment period as contained in H.R. 3208. The Fleet ReserveAssociation feels that any such person now serving on active duty

most certainly should be included in the temporary enrollment

period provided for in H.R. 3208.

Our second amendment would be to include those persons nowserving on active duty who are entitled to the benefits of the

Cold War G.I. Bill but will forfeit or shorten this entitlementbecause they have remained on active duty beyond a time thatwould allow their schooling to be completed before 31 December1989 when the Cold War G.I. Bill benefits terminates.

These two added provisions would enhance the Montgomery G.I.

Bill and enable it to proclaim to all young Americans now serving

or considering serving in our armed forces, that service in auniform of our country and the benefits of higher education go

hand-in-hand.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, as previously stated, the Fleet ReserveAssociation is indeed proud of its endeavors to assure the

enactment of the Montgomery G.I. Bill. But we are even prouderof this Committee because you are not content to rest on thelaurels of victory but instead are pursuing a path of improve-

ments for the Montgomery G.I. Bill to assure that it becomes an

integral part of the fabric of the American society and serves to

make that society doubly strong whether its participants are in

or out of uniform.

In sharing your goal we offer this testimony and urge you to

seriously consider our recommendations in support of H.R. 2950

and H.R. 3208.

3

148

145

We thank you for the opportunity to express our views today.It is because our representative form of government provides theopportunity to do so that we have willingly devoted a majorportion of our adult lives to the defense and perpetuation ofthat government. On behal. of not only my MA Shipmates, but ourenlisted Sea Service personnel everywhere, I thank you. I willanswer any questions you may have to the best of my ability.

4

146

2.2dr NATIONAL CAPITAL Of FACE.1141N. Washintron Sneer Alexandria. VA 22314 Tele: (7011 t pa II' I

NCO.

ligki

THE NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATIONOF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

"sTRENGTIIIN UNITY"

Statement of

Richard W. JohnsonDirector of Lcuislative Affairs

befort the

Subcommittee on Education.Treasury and Employment

Committee on Veterans' AffairsU.S. House of Representatives

on

Montgomery G. I. Bill Improvements

October 14. 1987

1.50

147

The Non Commissioned Officers Association of the USA (NCOA*)is grateful for this opportunity to once again meet with thecommittee to discuss proposed improvements in the Montgomery G.I.Bill. Under specific consideration today are H.R. 2950. a billwhich would reopen flight training under certain circumstances.and H.R. 3208. a bill which would allow recruits more time todecide whether to participate in the Montgomery G.I. Bill andmore time to make the payments associated with participation.H.R. 3208 would also allow participants in the program totransfer unused benefits to a spouse or child under somecircumstances and would allow a surviving -^ouse or child of adeceased veteran to concurrently receive th benefits of theMontgomery G.I. Bill and the Survivors' and Dependents'Educational Assistance Program. Also on t' agenda is H.R. 3180.a bill which would make the same changes proposed in H.R. 3208and provide a 60 day open enrollment period for personsinducted after July 1. 1985 who initially declined toparticipate. It would also provide for the payment of a gratuityequal to participation fees paid by a veteran who dies or becomesdisabled prior to using his or her entitlement.

NCOA has four priorities for improving the Montgomery G.I.Bill. only one of which overaps with the proposed legislation.First and foremost, eliminate the participation fee. (Spreadparticipation payments over a longer period only if feeelimination is impossible). Second. extend the benefits of theG.I. Bill to servicemembers who are forced to retire between June30. 1985 and July 1. 1938. Third. open enrollment in theMontgomery G. I. Bill upon reenlistment to people who initiallyentered service between January 1. 1977 and June 30. 1985. and toothers who initially declined to participate. Finally, makecontributions to the program refundable, at least to those whobecome disabled or to the survivors of those who die while onactive duty.

Fee Elimination

Too many servicemembers are prevented from participating inthe Montgomery G.I. Bill because they can not afford the payforfeitures required. This was a recurrent point made bynon-participants to the delegation which traveled to militarytraining sites earlier this year. Indeed, married privates.airmen and seamen, need all the money they can earn to support afamily notwithstanding the investment potential of the G.I. Bill.Food. housing, clothing -- immediate needs -- all preventparticipation in the Montgomery G.1. Bill no matter what itpromises for the future. Favoring participants in the programwith transferability while others are financially precluded fromparticipation is grossly inequitable since participation, formany, is not a matter of sacrifice so much as it is survival.

NCOA has been labeled as being against transferableeducation benefits. but that is somewhat false. NCOA is againstselective transferability. particularly in a program whichprecludes the participation of many veterans. NCOA does notbelieve it I: fair. right. equitable or economical to allowtransferability only for those who serve in critical militaryskills. Neither does NCOA believe it is right, fair orequitable to allow dependent education benefits under a G.I. Billwhile so many veterans remain ineligible for its benefits.

Participation fees were not a part of the Montgomery G.I.Bill when it was first proposed. They were added by opponents ofthe measure hopeful of causing the program's failure. The timefor their repeal has come. Their repeal will solve most of theprogram's problems such as timing of participation decisions.refunds for the disabled and survivors. payment schedules and

151

148

accounting problems.

Fees for participation in veteran's programs must come to anend. The one year temporary fee for participation in theveterans' loan guaranty has been increased once and extendedseveral times. Last year the VA began collecting fees forpreviously free medical care. The last G.I. Bill.euphemistically ..peaking. cosc its participants money. Webelieve the trend toward charging for veterans' benefits mustend.

Career Service Benefits

The Montgomery G.I. Bill was designed to forestall an exodusof career service people who were expected to leave the armedforces in order to use their Vietnam-era G. I. Bill benefitsbefore that program expires in 1989. As a result a potentiallycritical shortage of professional noncommissioned and pettyofficers was averted. However. a new problem has become apparentsince many of those servicemembers 'ho elected to remain inservice are now being forced out of service prior to qualifyingfor the new G.I. Bill.

In discussing and creating the Montgomery G.I. Bill Congresscreated a reasonable expectation that servicemembers who jclnedthe armed forces prior to December 31. 1976 would be protectedfrom the loss of education benefits. However the provision forthree years of service after July 1. 1985. while well intei.ded.has proved an impossible criteria to achieve for many because ofmilitary personnel policy.

The services employ an 'up or out' system of retention forits career personnel. Additionally. policy limits the service ofenlisted members to 30 years. Thus many servicemembers who aremore than willing to fulfill the additional service requirementsof the Montgomery G.I. Bill are being forced out at thirty yearsof service. or at 26 years of service of they serve in the gradeE-8. at 24 years in the grade E-7. and at 20-22 years in thegrade E-6. No exceptions are made for those who want to qualifyfor the new G.I. Bill.

NCOA has had calls of complaint and concern from officersand enlisted members alike. Recently retired Sergeant Major ofthe Army Glen Morrell is among the prominent. Morrell retiredfollowing a distinguished career as the senior enlistedservicemember in the Army. He served in combat in Vietnam. In

fact. for thirty years he served this nation under anycircuastances. good or adverse. and in anyplace. near or far.Yet after such a long and distinguished career. he is denied thefull measure of post service education benefits available toother veterans. Recently an Admiral called our office with asimilar concern.

NCO urges the committee to waive the three year servicerequirement for servicemembers who retire for longevity afterJuly 1. 1985. This would not be an expensive proposal. but itwould provide justifiable recognition to those professionalnoncommissioned and petty officers who have served this nation.

Open Enrollment

Prior to the creation of the Montgomery G.I. Bill. theVeterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) served as a G.I.Bill for those who enlisted between January 1. 1977 and June 30.1985. VEAP was a tragedy in both performance and benefits. Few

enrolled. even fewer received training under its provisions. The

original Montgomery G.I. Bill would have allowed these

-2-

152

149

servicemembers to become ell7ible for the new program benefitsupon reenlistment. An unfortunate modification precluded thisand an even more unfortunate omission precluded new enrollmentsin VEAP for those who had not previously elected to participate.Last year Congress enacted a brief open enrollment period forthose who wanted to participate in VEAP but did not enrollpreviously. Nevertheless. this rather poorly publicized programdrew few new enrollments. Yet even if it had the desired effect.VEAP remains a poor excuse for a G.I. Bill. As a result a wholegeneration of soldiers. sailors. airmen. and Marines servewithout entitlement to a G.I. Bill.

It was the desire of the original sponsors to include thesecareer servicemembers under the provisions of the Montgomery G.I.Bill. In real terms it will give these veterans the G.I. Billthey never had. Hopefully the committee will consider this andrecommend legislation to open enrollment in the Montgomery G.I.Bill to VEAP eligibles who reenlisted for three or more yearsafter July 1. 1985.

This would expand on and fulfill a retention goal of theoriginal legislation. Concurrently NCOA recommends thatenrollment be opened upon reenlistment to servicemembers whoinitially declined to participate in the new G.I. Bill. This.too. would contribute to retention and would make participationmore economically feasible (under current participation rules)for those who could not afford to participate at enlistment.

Refundability

If NCOA's arguments for elimination of participation feeshave not been persuasive. then we implore the committee to makepay forfeitures refundable at least for those who become disabledand the survivors of those who die while on active duty.

Earlier in this statement NCOlt mentioned the collection off4es for veterans' services. At least the fee collected on homeloans makes home ownership possible. Fees for medical careactually buy medical care. Even VEAP contributions wererefundable. To NCO it is unconscionable for the government totake money for a service never provided. Ideally all veteransshould be entitled to a refund of contributions if the benefit isnot used. Participation in the Montgomery G.I. Bill is a gamblefor an 18 year old and Uncle Sam is the bookie and shill. Theshill sells the bet and If a recruit is lucky. life will go justright and the bet will pay off. But a young man's plans canquickly change and the bookie always profits.

Surely government need not profit from its veterans. Unusedenrollment fees should be refunded.

Summary

NCOA does not endorse the passage of any of the bills underconsideration by the committee in their current form. Theassociation believes veterans would benefit more from theelimination of fees. from open enrollment in the Montgomery G.I.Bill for those who continue to serve and from benefits to thoseVietnam-era veterans forced to retire before becoming eligiblefor the Montgomery G.I. Bill. Hopefully. the committee willconsider these recommendations for veterans during deliberationson improvements in the Montgomery G.i. Bill.

-end-

-3-

153

150

ISMIONALASSOCINrIONIElnilINIFORNIEDSERVICES%Mt 111A1101-1DMM

Mil1:m*11.1 I1, \INGIMA 221t1.1011

ii,Vn.amereholhoamalwwwve1.444441WAV

Statement ofColonel Charles C. Partridge

Legislative CounselThe National Association for Uniformed Services

Before theSubcommittee on Education. Training. and Employment

Committee on Veterans AffairsHR 2950. HR 3208 and HR 3180

to amend the Montgomery C.I. BillOctober 14. 1987

Mr. Chairman. and members of this distinguished panel. I welcome the

opportunity to present the views of the National Association for UniformedServices on proposals to amend the Montgomery C.I. Bill.

The National Association for Uniformed Services' (NAUS) membership

represents all grades and ranks of career and non-career service personneland their spouses and widows. Our membership includes active, retired.

and reserve personnel of all seven uniformed services: Army, Navy, Air

Force. Marines, Coast Guard. Public Health Service, and the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration. With such membership. we are able

to draw information from a broad base for our legislative activities.

Mr. Chairman, we think that the Hontgomer3 G.I. Bill in its present formis doing en outstanding job of attracting high quality young people intothe military and providing veterans a readjustment benefit. The

Montgomery C.I. Bill is working probably even better and more effectivelythan most of us dared hope. We also recognize that carefully considered

changes can make this benefit even more effective and we very suchappreciate the opportunity to participate in the process.

Period in which to make decision to participate, Currently the MontgomeryG.I. Bill requires that the decision regarding participation be made uponentry on active duty. HR 3208 and HR 3180 would extend the time for theenrollment decision up to 60 days after entry on active duty. We believe

the current enrollment process complements and is closely t...ed torecruiting. It properly places the burden of explaining the G.I. Bill onrecruiting personnel prior to the recruits entry on active duty. Thus,

the recruit may discuss the G.1 Bill with parents, teachers and peersprior to entering on fictive duty.

During this period he should evaluate the proposal and eaeentixlly makehis decision before enlisting even though he executes the document laterupon entry on active duty. The requirement for an early decision, Ibelieve is one reason for the Army's 93% enrollment rate in August. All

the services enrollment rates are increasing. To delay the decision point

could very well result in a drop in participation rates. Thereiore. I

recommend that the decision point remain within the first few days afterentry on active duty. H based on this committees visit to basictraining sites in February, it was apparent that a number of recruitsregretted opting out of the program. They would have enrolled if given a

second chance. NAUS believes this second chance should be given, probablynear the end of basic training.

154

151

Pay Reduction Period. We support the provisions of HR 3208 which wouldauthorize the individual to elect the current reduction ' $100 per monthfor the first 12 months or to elect $60 per month for the first 20 months.For some service members with family or other financial responsibilities areduction of $100 per month creates a hardship. The change would allowreduction of the full $1200 from all service members including the two-year enlistse who could be released sus early as 20 months at theconvenience of the government and still receive full G.I. Bill benefits.

Transfer of Entitlement: to Dependents. NAUS supports the proposal in HR3180 which would authorize a service member to transfer his basiceducational entitlement to his dependents. Veterans who elect to make theArmed Forces their profession have little opportunity to accumulatesufficient savings to provide a college education for their children. Asa result, many at the aid-career point reluctantly leave the services forhigher paying professions so that they can afford to send their childrento school. This provision would be very appealing to senior NODs who arehard pressed today to meet the high costs of college education for theirchildren.

Compensation in Lieu of Benefits. We support the provisions of HR 3208which would expand HR 3001 introduced earlier cad provide compensation inlieu of benefits to the mentally or physically disabled G.I. Bill programenrollee or to his beneficiaries in the event of the service membersdeath. This extension of the provisions of HR 3001 will provide anadditional degree of equity and fairness for service members and theirsurvivors by insuring that they do not suffer unexpected economic loss asa result of participation in the C.I Bill program.

HR 2950

iiB-impports the provisions of HR 2950 which would expand theavailability of flight training for qualified veterans. The controlsestablished to prevent abuse of the program appear to be a reasonablecomprosiee betwonn making the training available for veterans in pursuitof a vocational endeavor while ensuring that the course is not pursued as

hobby or for frivolous purposes.

Mr. Chairmen, our members continue to be interested in the opportunitiesprovided the young men and women of America by the Montgomery C.I. Billand I very much appreciate the

opportunity you have provided to representthem at this hearing.

155

152

STATEMENT BY

LIEUTENANT GENE7AL LA VERN E. WEBER

MCUTIVE DIRECTOR

of the

NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

to the

Subcommittee on Education, Training and Employment

of the

House Committee on Veterans' Affairs

14 October 1987

156

153

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I sincerely appreciate

this opportunity to present the views of the National Guard Associationof the united States on implementation of the Montgomery GI Bill.

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL GUARD

The national defense role of the National Guard is developing intofull partner responsibilities as a result of the Total Force Policyestablished in 1973. Almost 50 percent of the Total Army fightingpersonnel are in the Army National Guard and approximately 26 percent ofthe aircraft in the Total Air Force are in the Air National Guard.Representation in specific areas is even greater, with 73 percent of Armyinfantry battalions and 73 percent of Air Force CCNUS strategicinterceptor forces in the National Guard. To meet its defenseobjectives, the nation relies on a well-equipped and well-trainedNational Guard.

This evolution could not ha.o taken place without the encouragementand support of the congress. Congressional guidance and resourceallocation along with Department of Defense planning and application haveforged a stronger partnership and a more ready total force.

MANPOWER

Although equipment and training are essential ingredients of wartimereadiness, the most important factor in producing combat-ready NationalGuard units is the ability to recruit and retain sufficient numbers ofhigh-quality personnel. Through continuous and intensive efforts, theNational Guard has been able to meet its manpower goals in recent years.Increased reliance on the Guard will place even greater demands onrecruiting and retention efforts. At the end of FY87, the ARNG hadattained an end strength level of approximately 453,000. The ANG hadachieved an end strength of 114,595. The President's budget has aprogramed total end strength of 458,800 in the Army Guard and 116,700 inthe Air Guard by the end of PY88. Continued growth is programed throughFY92. Effective re:ruiting and retention efforts will be critical if weare to achieve the desired strength and maintain the readiness of theNational Guard and the Total Force.

RECRUITING AND Renarrim INCENTIVES

There are a number of incentives that have been helpful in achievingrequired strength goals. They include enlistment and reenlistmentbonuses, tuition assistance, and educational loan repayment programs.Sane have been developed to serve a special purpose, and are targeted tospecific critical skills or occupations, such as medical skills.

The bonus and tuition assistance programs are certainly importantparts of the overall incentive package for recruiting and retaininghigh - quality targeted segments of the civilian population. They havebeen instrumental over the past few years in helping to reduce theshortage in many critical skill specialties. Their effectiveness hasbeen hampered, however, by the limited period of authorization.

Those incentives that have proven to be effective should be madepermanent. The lapse in authority for enlistment and reenlistmentbonuses in late 1985 resulted in a great deal of turbuleice andconfusion. Authority for these programs and the tuition assistanceprogram again terminated on 30 September this year because of the lack ofan Authorization Act. It appears that the lapse may be of an even longerduration than experienced in 1985. The indefinite status of theseprograms is harmful to day-to-day recruiting and retention activities.We would hope that this recurring problem could be resolved.

MaDDIERY GI BILL

Although it is not targeted toward specific specialties, theMontgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve has proven to be a valuableincentive for across-the-board recruitment and retention within theNational Guard. By providing education assistance, it serves as a veryeffective attraction to college oriented, individuals. It promotes the

1')7

154

-2-

Guard/Reserve all-volunteer program by assisting in recruibme.t ofhigh-quality personnel. It also improves retention through the six-yearenlistment/ reenlistment requirement and by authorizing participationonly while in Selected Reserve status.

In FY 1984 prior to the GI Bill.; 37 percent of all enlistments and 50percent of all reenlistment& in the Air National canard were for sixyears. The FY 1987 percentages, as of 1 September, have increased to 63percent for enlistments and 61 percent for reenlistments. Since theinpaeuentation of the Montgomery GI Bill in July 1985, the ratio forextensions for six years instead of 3 years has risen in the ArmyNational Guard from 3:1 to 10:1. In part, these improvements can beattributed to the GI Bill, as well as increased bonus rates and otherfactors. Program differences between the Active Duty Chapter 30 programand the Selected Reserve Chapter 106 program make determining the numberof Guard and Reserve personnel eligible for the benefit more illusivethan for the Active Coaconent. However, the combined participation ratefor the Army and Air National Guard shows a rise of approximately 38percent site January 1987.

A nationwide attitudinal survey was conducted by the National GuardBureau in late 1986. The survey of 15,000 personnel targeted recruitingand retention personnel, first term enlistees, and retained numbers. Thesurvey clearly_ indicated the strong recruiting and retention value of theGI pill to de personal decisions of soldiers and airmen. The surveyshmed 58 percent of the respondents considered the GI Bill a factor inenlistment, reenlistment, and extension decisions. Further, 29 percentindicated they would not have enlisted and 19 percent would not havereenlisted/extended without the GI Bill. Clearly the Montgomery GI Billis accomplishing its goal.

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

The specific bills, HR 2950, HR 3180 and HR 3208, under ccasiderationby this committee are all possible evolutions for the Montgomery GIBill.

Since these bills have limited impact an the Guard and Reservemoronity, we will not convent in detail on the specific provisions. Webelieve several provisions, such as the proposal to stretch out thepayments over 20 months, would make the Bill more attractive to thejunior grade target group. We also recognize the merits of havingtransferability provisions under certain circumstances, such as uponservice-connected death or disability of service personnel. We wouldonly question the cost effectiveness and valid need for other provisions;however, we defer judgment since they are Chapter 30 proposals relatingto the active components.

We would like to take this opportunity to propose an amendment whichthe National Guard Association believes would improve the effectivenessof Chapter 106 of the Montgomery GI Bill. We believe Guard and Reserveparticipants under Chapter 106 should be given the sane educationaloptions provided to Chapter 30 participants. That is, the program shouldbe expanded to include studies of less than half-time attendance,vocational, training, college remedial, deficiency and refresher courses,and graduate studies.

Expansion of the Chapter 106 program would be consistent with therequirements of advanced technology and quality leadership in todcy'senvironment. We believe that graduate level benefits would be

particularly attractive to the Guard and Reserve participants. They arefaced with combined pressures for additional education from theircivilian employers and military commanders. A logical secondaryby- product of graduate studies coverage would be enhanced employer

support because of tha quality of individual experience being gained byemployees through affiliation with the Guard and Reserve.

158

155

-3-

The technical advances in equipment and training within the Army andAir National Guard require personnel with advanced levels of experiencefor successful operation. Some of our vital readiness skills require ahands-on vocational education learning environment rather than academicclassroom situations. As has been demonstrated under previous GI Sills,vocational education can be a cost effective avenue to a ready for andan improved civilian workforce.

The increasing demands of readiness training, along with full-timework and family commitment often limit the ability of Guard and Reservemembers to devote the necessary time to maintain half-time participationin education programs. Chapter 106 participants shoat': be allowed to usetheir benefits on less than a half-time basis.

In closing, let me reiterate that the National Guard Associationfully supports the Montgomery GI Sill as it is currently written. Wealso support the desires of the members of this Ccamittee to continuallyevaluate measures that would strengthen the Sill. For example, the

decision by Congress earlier this year to make the legislation permanenthas significantly enhanced the program's stability and appeal. This typeof commitment from Congress to more effective recruiting and retentionprograms is, in and of itself, a contribution to morale and readiness.The value to the military and the nation should far exceed the cost ofprogram changes, through higher retention, increased readiness, andeventual pay back through a higher-educated populace.

Kr. Chairman, we are grateful for the support which you and themembers of this subcommittee have provided in the past, and we lookforward to your continued support of National Guard requirements in thefuture.

79-871 0 - 88 - 6 159

156

1 MASSACHUSETTS AVE. NW SUITE 101WASHINGTON. DC. 20001

TESIDall

OF THE

Frusr Eo Amcor Anal of DE NC/ Me 4140.RD

Cr THE item STATES

EE haVTEI:AERY et BELL

ESE TIE

IOW 51.1031412TEE (1V ECtrATICINI, TPADElse At seLowar

CCIEDER 1+, 1987

A1AN D. COE/811.1.1.ER CMS (RET)ETC1111NE =EC=CM ASS4014SZTIS AVENX MVmammy, D.C. 20001

TELEREINE: 371 -1856

160

157

ClitIRWAN,DISTINXIS/E0 moms OF TIE COMMITTEE, IT IS ONCE A64IN

My PLE4SISE TO APPEAR PETCRE you w attar TESTDAn OCNCERNIAG THE

/424°1ERY BILL . CN maguey 18th Or THIS yEAR, I PRESENT a C1.12

VIEWS CN Wadi* THE NEW GI BILL PER144/ENI LEGISIATIQV.

AT 1214T TUE, I RESCRTED ID y2/ THAT A TOTAL Of 25,598 Agmy AM AIR

NATIONAL. GUARD I.EN AN, h0V134 WERE PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROGRAM. AS Of

41, SEPIASER 1987, TAT TOTAL HAS RISEN TO 35,349, AN INCREASE Of SOME

38 PERCENT IN JEST EZG/ff ALMS. I to N)T HAKE TO COMMENT FIRMER ON

ALE vuzOrry or THE TH1E57,4E1+11' IN TIE ACNIMWERy NEW GI BILL.

JUST A WIC PRIM TO Ac's FIRST APPEARANCE BETE THIS 031WZITEE, I MS

PRIVILEGE° TO AO:WNW MA'AM Acreemary Mb A DIST724/4UISHE° afar

CF LEGISLATORS, rmatime sow MOMS Of THIS SLECCWITIFE, Ci4CRESS/Q AL

STAFF 41, tiE1I3ERS Or RESERVE ASSCCIATICNS or4 A FACT-Frtam TRIP TO 11487.0

MINIM CENTEPS OF THE SERVICES TO WITNESS PRESENTATION Of TIE lE1V GI

BILL TO RECRUITS Mb PARTICIPATE IN QIESTICN Mb ANSWER PERILS WITH

Ti OSE TRAINEES. PIO Or TIE M4IN CCN:MIS - REASCNS ft 1\111-13411TICIPATICN

AS STATED 1311 THE TRAINEES AT THAT TIME - IVERE TrE AkaiNT Or PAY

-2-

161

158

WI7211/1) ($100 PER )431111 fCt /424111S) MN PAY Cr A NSW scam,

&ULM, AIRA4N OR MOLINE; ,4N) DE LD4ITEDAMCUNT Or TIME PERMITTED TO

MICE THIS IMMIX DECISION IN A SIRESSF11. MINIM ENVIROWENT. ANOTHER

arm sz(TEt eliorrmai Or THE PROBRAM 1014S TRANSFER OF ElJTITLBENTS TO

Fumy mem.

I WISE THE INTENT AN) PROVISIONS Or H.R. 3180 AN) H.R. 3208 ABECIATELy

&CRESS DESE MUCUS TO A11)ITIQN4L EttrATICML PARTICIPATION. HAVE

1440 PRETEREWE BETWEEN DE 710 BILLS AS RELATES TO EITHER SIREICBII4 air

TIE PAyENT SCIE/ILE, CR IN 7111 LANa44CE a TRANSFE1W3ILIV OF THE

ENTITLBENT. TIE 710 BILIS IN PRESOR/BD4 A 60 1)4y PERICb Or CZNSVERATICN

uNron. THE 00141ET/CN Or THE BASIC IRAINThe PERXI), ALSO ATEGMATELy

Al S$ TIE 1>E=10\1 TINE-03ERESSICN COMPLAINT. TIESE ARE SILLS IERTAINIM

TO TIE ACTIVE FORCES AN) RE SUPPCRT THEM, L.E4VIM3 SPECIFIC RECOW.E104TIONS

TO DIME 11th DIRECT DE SERVICES.

LET HHS TURN FORA ?ANENT IC) H.R. 2950 CON:ERND4 PLIONT TRAIN/M. RE SUM=

THIS BILL ALSO, ESPECZ411.y &IKE IT &DRESSES TIE RESEZE COXECtiENT ENTITLE ENT

IN:Ett SECTION 2, AND POINTS UP A REOXiNIZED NEED FCR NOCAT/CN41., TRAINThq AS

IELL AS ACADEMIC, TECiREE-ORIMED EDWATICN.

-3-

162

159

Ia. 0i4/RI44N, RE Misr wcAnctx. TRAINDQ IS ALSO 1,4ECESS4Ry 70 AOLTEW

aR OWLS OF EACATICML =MINX AN) TE0i42.COICAL sterRraary IMO THE

funs E. AFTER lc= w n Art DE NCRE4N CT LILT, M4Ny Cf CIS WIERANS

FURS= NoCATION4L TRAINThe IN ELECTPCIVICS AND EMIZEERZI4G - THREE-JAR

PROGRAMS AT ME TIME - Di4T PREMED TISI pm COMPETITION IN THE SCIENMS

IN THE 11257164R yrARS. MeV OF 7106E GRADIATES oa:uPy FOSITION S C f PRO-

MIMICE IN mtusnly =my. Acorn, AVER= STILL ! sauzo cIWTS-

MEN 70 WilVfACTURE ANID tESIQN THE 70:LS OF rscaCTLCV - WELTERS, 70CL Ar)

DIDAKERS, WEED.CL4L yams, Caftan PRCCiRAWERS, ME.-1-11AMS, 12,4fTEMIN -

70 MAE BUT t A TEW - 70 lir ILEAS INTO Mal Mb PROJECTIONS Mt REAury.

NE NEED 70 COMMIE 70 EICOURAGE CCAT/CML ZUCATICN AS %ELL AS ACADEMIC

ACHIEWENT.

AT OM N477(2441. CafEREN1 IN LOUISVILLE, KENTICKy JUST A AM IN AGO, a*

MatERSHIP PASSEb A RESCLUTIM 70 DAT EFFECT. A Cal' C f THIS mama)

IS ATTAQED fat DE COWNITIEE'S caNartERAnaq. ra5 Erscuarav, IN THE

RESOLVED CLAUSE, SPELLS air at P3SITICN ON IMPROVEMENT Cf THE I.CNTGMIty

(f/ BILL fat DE RE EM RACES ENTITLEMENTS. ICE REUSE THESE ENTMEMENIS

&OLD SE IDENTICAL 70 Titsr LITER 014.171ER 30 TITLE 30, USC AS FAR AS TyPES

-4-

163

160

Cr IPAIMM ARE CCICERBEB.

BEC4USE Cr THE =CIE SERVICE IMMO By 1.18ERS Of DE RESERVE fatCES-

AS VaLLEJTEIRS MINIM 70 SERVE THE MTX IN TIRES Cr DEROEN:y AND CCerLICT,

Ab, AT THE SWE TUE RIRSUINe EttrATICN AND 511.0y.ENT IN THE CIVILIAN MARKET-

RACE - THE4 MIMES MAST fl LE MINER EbtrATICN CIV A BART-TINE BitSIS. WE

BELIZE Iffy &CUB RECEINE ASSISTAZ Q4 AN AIUUSTED BASIS Rat ME Hiss Da

CCMPLETE IN A LESS-DAN-itUr TB& PR TRAM, Fitovrbrm um MSS caVIRLBUTE 70

AN ACAEBUI: at VDCATICINAL CERTIFICATE at t8EE.

TIE WISE, AS WE ME SEATED, THAT PEWITS SIE11.1:0 BE ECPAMED 70 ItCLUX

NCCATIailL AM AMENTICF.SHIP AND BE fitly AEPLIC4ELE TO ALL IN4SES

Cf Auto= ETU:ATM IN2LCIB4 ATMBTED TESIUFES.

A. ORMAN, ME WRITE Cf THE MaN/tP4OW (t BILL CAN BE VIEWED MN SEVERAL

IERESECT/IES. IT CAN BE VIEW) AS AN IN:ENT-NE fill ElLISIVENT Of 4:4441.ITy

IN)IVITULLS IMO THE MILITARY SERVICES. IT C4N BE VIEWED AS A RETENTION)

24 1%E. AND IT C4N BE VIEWED AS A BRIDGE TO CIVILIAN LIFE AT THE DO

Or A CAREER - A REABIUSWENT BETWEEN 7110 tWELDS. THE leCNIOCMERy 6I BILL

Is ALL Or THESE. IT WES All Or THESE THINS. BUT WE BL? TEE IT MG AN

AWITTCPAL ADANTA&E. WE BELIEVE IT SEINES A VITAL BEM or W cateRli

-5-

161

THE NEED 70 suy CN ME a/aim Eta OF TEOPCLOSY.

THE CIVECTINE Or ME ACNDXMERy SI BILL, AND ITS PRMECESSORS BEIVRE IT,

IN CAR VIEW, IS AND W4S 70 EXCURACiE MODER EDIr4l7CN F.R MEMBERS OF THE

ARMED SERVICES, THUS SERVING A NEED OF DE IVIVIDIAL AND THE N4TDON.

EttrArrav IS A tATICINAL RESCUiCE - CtE THAT MUST SE CARETULLy NJRIURED

AND EACOLIV4ED f122 aR 021171411/ IAT/ONILL WELL-SEIII3. WE SE/ZEIE THAT

ALL WW2 - VXATICNIL AS WELL AS ACADEMIC - PROVIDES RV DAT

IVELL-LET/sq, AND &OLD LE EINCOURAGEO.

WE SELTENE IT DIRECTLy AFFECIS READINESS, IN THAT E[XCATIAN AT AbW4XED

LEVELS conintwinz 70 MASTERy OF COZLEX sysina AND IMRDW4RE.

DLISTED ASSCCIATICN Cr DE IAT/a441., (Web Cr THE UNTIED STATES 1.1R5ESItWE MEMBERS CF TIE =NTT= 70 CONSIDER EM'AN)Itsq THE mavracuaty SI SILL

70 COVER PART-TIME PROSRAMS, WCATIOIAL TR4TY/I4, Alit PURSUIT OF AIMICED

moms sy ME ears or ME SELECTED RESERW. WE VIEW IT AS AN AttnizawL

INCENTIVE fa/ w4L/Ty PEOPLE 70 ENLIST IN, AND MAIN IN ME 114770AL (MED

AND RESERVE COieCtENIS. ME portexarg or EICAT/CIAL OPPORIUNI7y HMS

ALSXADy BUN ESDLPLIWED AND HISIORy HAS stow ME IATTOWL BENEFITS DERIVED

fR011 A SI BILL. RAT /MAINS TO PE DOW, IN at VIEW, IS 70

-6-

165

162

144.1a141ZE TINT VILLE I V COVERI144 ALL RIMS OF HIQEI2 EICATIat RV W

01.4410 AND RESERIE 'CITIZEN - SOLDIERS'.

WE IN FAME APPLAlt yarn htit 70 011.E LS TIE BEST Et:mu-Law.

Crfailtisray POSSIBLE. WE APPRECIATE yas cCMINED SUPPCRT Of TIE CitlARD

AND RESERW SCIDITIt AND ATM EN, AND 7IEIR SPECL4L NEEDS.

W. 0347.1044N, I WILL W 114PPy 70 AMER my CIESTICNS 70 TIE BEST OF my

ABILITY.

TIMNC yar

-7-

166

163

EANGUS RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

87-09

PERTAINING TO: EXPANSION OF THE NEW GI BILL

WHEREAS. Public Law 98-525 enacted in October 1984, amendedChapter 106 of Title 10, United States Code, to establish theEducational Assistance for members of the Selected Reserve, commonlyreferred to as the 'New GI Hill'; andWHEREAS, Public Law 100-48 enacted on 1 June 1987 mad, theMontgomery GI Bill, formerly the 'New GI Hill' a permanent program;andWHEREAS. Unlike the other educatinal programs ad-lint:tired by theVeterans Administration which result from qualifying Active military

'service. the Montgomery bill is an entitlement provided in recognitionof the vital role performed by the Selected Reserve of the ReadyReserve of the United States Armed Forces; and

WHEREAS The Montgomery Bill has proven to be a positive incentivefor the recruitment, retention, and education of the members of theNational Guard; and

WHEREAS. The ever-increasing demands for advancid educationfor members of the military are a fact of life; and

WHEREAS. Use of the Montogomery GI Bill by members of the NationalGuard helps assure the high quality of present and futureGuardspersons; andWHEREAS, Although a valuable program as currently constituted, the

National Guard and its members could derive G greater ben.:1t from theMontogomery GI Bill if the educational assistance provided wasexpanded and made identical to that available under Chapter 30 ofTitle 38, United States Code; nowTHERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Enlisted Association of theNational Guard of the United States, in General Conference assembled

in Louisville. Kentucky, this 23rd day of September 1987, stronglysupports the expansion of tha existing Montgomery GI Bill to include,but not limited to: (1) studies of less than half-time attendancestatus; (2) vocational training: (3) college remedial, deficiency andrefresher courses; and (4) graduate studies.

-8-

167

164

Testimony ofBenjamin S. Catlin, Assistant Executive Director

Air Force Association

at a Hearing of theHouse Veterans Affairs Committee's

Education, Training and Employment Subcommittee

onThe Montgomery GI Bill

Good Morning Mr. Chairman:

It is a privilege for the Air Force Association, whichrepresents a quarter of a million members, to testify before yourcommittee. We appreciate the support this cc unittee has given toveterans and to the men and women of our Armed Forces.

The Air Force Association supported The Montgomery GI Billand appreciates this opportunity to present recommendations tomake an already excellent piece of legislation -- even better.

The Air Force Association at its 1986 Convention passed aPolicy Paper which states, "The Air Force Association supports:Establishing a permanent educational assistance program developedto meet quality manpower needs over the long term, including theAir National Guard and Reserve components."

As we testified in February of this year, there mould be afew changes to the GI Bill. Therefore, we support the followingchanges:

o Reducing the monthly pay roll deduction from $100 permonth for 12 months to $60 per month for 20 months.

o Extending the periodto "opt out" of the program from 14days after entry on active duty to 30 days.

o Having transferability of educational benefits todependents come into play at the 8-12 year point withthe secretarial discretion to apply it to selectedcareer fields. This feature would help the Air Forceretain those critical skills which are so necessary to ahighly technical fighting force.

o Providing a limited opportunity (60 days) for those whoopted out of the GI Bill to changl their election.

o Allowing member of the Guard and Reserve to use theirbenefits for the same programs as the active forcemembers. This would allow the Guard and Reserve -o usetheir benefits for vocational/technical programs,correspondence, or graduate study.

o Allowing prorated benefits to Guard and Reserve memberswho attend school on less than a half time basis.

o Allowing service members who chose not to enroll in themontgomery bill the opportunity to enroll during a 60day period after enactment of the bill.

The Air Force Association believes The Montgomery GI Bill isa basic benefit which is based on faithful and honorable service,and that these changes will make it more profound.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my brief prepared statement.Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am readyto address your questions.

168

165

STATEMENT OF THE MILITARY EXECUTIVEOF THE RESERVE FORCES POLICY BOARD,OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM R. BERKMANUNITED STATES ARMY

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,

TRAINING, AND EMPLOYMENT OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FIRST SESSION 100TH CONGRESS

OCTOBER 14, 1987

NOT FOR PUBLICATIONUN. IL RELEASED BY THEHOUSE VETERANS' AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

169

0P:

166

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:

On behalf of Chairman Will Hill Tankersley and the members

of the Reserve Forces Policy Board (Board) it is a pleasure be

here at your invitation to present the views of the Board on some

of the amendments being proposed to the Montgomery GI Bill.

The reserve components are essential elements of the Total

Force upon which our country relies for national security.

Achieving and maintaining required readiness of National Guard

and Reserve units requirts qualified men and women who are well

trained and physically fit to fight and 4in.

The Board has consistently supported the Montgomery GI Bill

as being in the best interest of our country. It provides a much

needed incentive for recruiting and retaining young men and women

for the Total Force. At its quarterly meeting earlier this year,

in March, the Board passed the following resolution.

"Our national security policy to maintain peacethrough deterrence and to protect U.S. interestsanywhere in the world requires strong, fully-mannedarmed forces consisting of Active and Reserve Componentpersonnel. The Montgomery GI Bill of 1984 is anexcellent recruiting aid which must become a permanentincentive. It is a "Nation Strengthening" educationalincentive which provides ambitious, patriotic young menand women financial support necessary for increasingcollege expenses.

"This bill will help the Armed Forces through thevicissitudes of the difficult recruiting years, whichare predicted in the early 1990's according to current

demographic analyses.

1;70

167

"The Board, as the 'principal policy adviser tothe Secretary of Defense on matters relating to thereserve components' (10 USC 175 (c)), strongly urgesthe Congress to support the bill and make it permanentlaw."

The Board appreciates the efforts of you, Mr. Chairman, and

members of this Committee and Congress that hrve made the

Montgomery GI Bill permanent.

The Board has considered the proposed amendments to the

Montgomery GI Bill relating to the reserve components which are

the subject of these hearings . It is the Board's position that

amendments which would expand coverage to permit vocational

t:aining and graduate educational assistance are extremely

worthwhile. They would make the Montgomery GI Bill an even more

effective incentive for recruiting and retaining highly qualified

young men and women into the selected reserve force of our

nation.

As the Board': recommendation stated, The Montgomery GI Bill

is "Nation Strengthening". Many of the amendments under

consideration will make it even more effective.

Thank you Mr. Chairman

2

. 171

168

Statement of

Colonel C. Judson Lively, Jr., USA (Rot.)

Director Retirement Affairs

Reserve Officers Association of the United States

Before the

Subcommittee on Education, Training, and EmploymentCommittee on Veterans Affairs

Concerning Legislation to Amend Title 38, United States Codeknown as the Montgomery G. I. Bill

October 14, 1987

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Coimittee:

Thank you for providing this opportunity to represent themany men and woman from all of the uniformed services who aremembers of the Reserve Officers Association (ROA).

ROA would also like to thank this Subcommittee for theactions that it has.taken in the past in providing educationalopportunities for our military personnel, both active andreserve, and we appreciate having the opportunity today tocomment on proposed legislative changes to this importantprogram.

As you know, ROA worked with many of you to make the New GIBill legislation a reality. We supported the test program whichwas established some three years ago. And again earlier thisyear we worked with you in support of legislation to make theNew GI Bill permanent legislation. We were most gratified tosee the Congress enact and the President sign into law H.R. 1085which provided for this permanent entitlement.

Prop all reports that the Reserve Officers Association hasreceived the new Montgomery GI Bill is having u positive impacton the quality of recruits entering both the active and reserveforces. As we have testified in the past, certain minorshortcomings ars becoming evident which deserve furtherlegislative attention. Thus, at our annual national conventionthis past July, the membership endorsed the need fc certainimprovements. A copy of that resolution is attached to mytestimony. The Reserve Officers Association, in its recentlyadopted resolution, supports a legislative change which wouldpermit reservists to use the Montgomery GI Dill for postgraduate training. We believe this would be an incentive toattract and retain college graduates into reserve programs. In

172

169

addition, we believe that the new GI Bill legislation should bemodified to permit the refund of the member's costs if theservice member, due to death or other cogent reasons, is unableto use the benefit. This legislative fix is contained in one ofthe bills you currently have under consideration, H.R. 3208.The last area that-ROA went on the record as supporting is therecognition of on the job training, correspondence schools, andapprenticeships, as authorized programs under the new GI Bill.This aspect of ROA's resolution addresses the fact that thereare many skilled, technically oriented positions within thereserve where such training courses could be utilized to raisethe overall effectiveness of the reserve components.

We realize that there are several other issues which theCommittee will address in the bills presently before it (H.R.2950, H.R. 3180, and H.R. 3208). However, the Reserve OfficersAssociation has not taker. an official position on the otherprovisions contained in these proposals. We do recommend thatthis Committee work with the uniformed leadership of theservices in adopting, rejecting, and/or modifying these otherprovisions so that the final legislative package presented tothe Congress will best meet the personnel needs of the separateservices, both in their active and reserve components.

Thank you for the opportunity to present ROMs views. Yourcontinued support of the men and women who are wearing and whohave worn the uniform of our country, both active and reserve,is deep4 appreciated'. I will, be happy to answer any questionsyou may have.

173

170

Resolution No. 87-22(Military Compensation/Benefits)

RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

211. New GI Bill

WHEREAS, the FY85 Defense Authorisation Act (PL98 -525) providedfor establishment of a new educational assistance test programeffective through 30 June 1988 for Active and Reserve Components; and

WHEREAS, the President has signed into law MR 1085 (PL 100-48)which makes permanent the New GI Bill entitlement; and

WHEREAS, this prsanent legislation does not permit Rmrvista touse the GI Bill for post graduate training which would be an incentiveto attract and retain college graduates into Reserve programs; and

WHEREAS, the New GI Bill legislation contains no provisionspermitting a refund of the member's cost even if the service member,due to death or other cogent reasons, is unable to use the benefit(applicable only to the Active Component); and

WHEREAS, on-the-job training, correspondence schools, andapprenticeships are not authorized training courses under hhe New GIBill;

NOW, UMW/ORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Reserve OfficersAssociation of the United States, chartered by Congress, urge theCongress to make such legislative ieprcGements as are required topermit the New GI Bill to be used by Reservists for post-graduateeducational purposes, to permit tt; refund of the contribution in theevent of death or other qualifying reasons, and to recognize on-the-jobtraining, correspondence schools, and apprenticeships as authorizedprograms under the New GI Bill.

(This supersedes Resolution No. 86-6)

Adopted by the National Convention4 July 1987

Attest:Evan L. HultmanMajor General, AUS (Rat.)Executive Director

174

171

!King PARED,(4IpOFFICERS

ASSOCIATION201 N. Washington St., Alexandria. VA 22314.2529 (703) 549.2311

Statement of

THE RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE on EDUCATION, TRAINING and EMPLOYMENT

of the

HOUSE VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Presented by

Commander John F. Wanamaker, VSNRetired

Deputy Director. Legislative Affairs

October 14, 1987

A Tradition of Service . .. Since 1929

175

172

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:

I am Commander John Wanamaker, USN-Retired, Deputy Director of

Legislative Affairs for The Retired Officers Association (TROA), which

has its national headquarters at 201 North Washington Street,

Alexandria, Virginia. Our Association has a membership of more than

351,000 active duty, retired and reserve officers of the seven

,Iniformed services. Included in our membership are 49,000 auxiliary

members who are the survivors of former members.

My purpose today is to provide the Committee with our Association's

views on the various legislative initiatives being considered to make

improvements in the Montgomery G.I. Bill. This Committee and

especially the members of this Subcommittee are to be commended for

their earlier actions in this first session of the 100th Congress by

the enactment of P.L. 100-48 which made permanent the Montgomery G.I.

Bill.

Earlier tois year our President, Vice Admiral Thomas Kilcline,

USN-Retired, visited various military installations along with

representatives of other military associations and a Congressional

delegation to see firsthand the reaction of our young recruits to this

important educational incentive. I would like to share his

observations with you:

-1-

176

173

o The new recruits, though not aware of specifics, know that

military service will help them get an education.

o Most new recruits give the impression that they are seriously

looking for a college education.

o The more serious recruit is aware of the New G.I. Bill.

o As explained to recruits, the new G.I. Bill is attractive.

Most want it.

o The Services were supportive. They sell it as hard as they can

without risking a backlash.

o The Army and Air Force Reserves seem to be almost 100 percent

involved in the program. There is no doubt that the New G.I.

Bill is absolutely essential for the continued high level of

enlistments in the reserve.

o There was no perception of opposition. Those not enrolled were

not able to afford the $1,200, did not feel they wanted that

much or kira of tlucation, or felt they were close enough to a

degrer, to be able to complete it while in service by using the

Tuition Assistance Program.

-2-

177

174

o There were some (about 10 percent) who were not able to effort,

the $100 per month reduction in pay who would seriously

consider participatilvj in the pr,gram if payments were

stretched out to $50 per month for 24 months.

o Many who had little previous knowledge of the New C.I. Bill

(10-15 percent) were uncomfortable asking the decision to

commit $1,200 without more thought, study or advice.

o Many were concerned about the non-refundability of the $1,200

commitment.

o The nuclear power recruits in the Navy were different. Almost

all have some college. All have six-year enlistments. Many

are sure they can get their degree in that time frame--and they

probably will.

o The Air Force recruits seemed much more oriented toward an

education (rather than tra4ning) program. 1.41r assignments

are already known, and they will have the stability in

assignments to afford them good opportunities for schooling.

o The Army has a fine program assisted by a very well funded

recruiting program and clearly leads the way in enrollment.

-3-

178

175

Based on these observations, our Association believes that certain

actions could be taken to make an excellent program even better. H.R.

3180 and H.R. 3208, two bills currently before this Committee for

consideration, would modify the reduction in pay schedule for those who

participate in the Montgomery G.I. Bill program. We relieve the $1,200

contribution by a servicemember toward his/her future education

demonstrates a good faith commitment and this feature should be

maintained. However, the $100 per month reduction in pay for some

members is excessive. It is recommended that current law be changed to

authorize a participant to spread out the v. '00 contribution payments

over the length of his/her enlistment or length of service obligation.

Provisions should be made to provide the Service secretaries the

flexibility to authc-ize eligibility to those serving on active duty

since the initial effective date of the Montgomery G.I. Bill, and who

originally elected not to participate, to reconsider enrollment is the

program. This flexibility could be limited to the requirement that the

individual have obligated service remaining of at least two years, or

that his/her election be accompanied with an agreement to extend

his/her obligation to complete at least two years of service following

such election.

H.R. 3208 further authorizes a servicemember to transfer entitlement of

the Montgomery G.I. Bill to dependents. Recently enacted legislation

significantly reduces the lifetime value of military retired pay and is

expected to have a corresponding effect on retention. This reduction

-4--

179

176

in retired pay will be especially severe for those who transition to

civilian life at the completion of twenty years of military service.

This also is the point that th3 majority experience the burden of

providing a college education for their children. Les our firm belief

that a new incentive will be essential to offset the diminis. Id value

of military retired pay and to facilitate the adjustment to civilian

life after a military career. Therefore, our Association would support

the transferability of the Montgomery G.I. Bill entitlement to a

servicemember's dependents but request that an additional restriction

be imposed beyond that contained in H.R. 3208. We believe that a

spouse should be married to the servicemember for a period of not less

than five years coinciding with active duty service.

It recol.mend this transferability be authorized only for those electing

to serve a total of not less than twelve years, demonstrating their

intention to make the military their professional career.

Mr. Chairman, anytime a program such as the Veterans Administration's

educational assistance program is established, the expectations of

those who provided service in order to receive those benefits should be

faithfully honorts. Subsequently changing the rules, imposing

deli&tting dates, or terminating progr: Is making it impossible for an

individual to benefit from a program from which he expected to receive

such benefits, should be avoided. I would like to bring to the

Committee's attention two situations where arbitrary changes to VA

-5-

18a

177

educational assistance programs shattered the expectations of those few

involved.

As an example, servicemembers with as much as 20 or more years of

service who are forced to retire prior to 30 June 1988 are only

eligible for the provisions of Chapter 34, the "old G.I. Bill" which

expires December 31, 1989, the delimiting date for that program.

This creates an inequity since servicemembers who are not forced to

retire until after June 30, 1988 earn educational entitlements under

the Montgomery G.I. Bill. In fact, this delimiting date provides

greater benefits to servicemembers, with as little as three years of

service than some who have faithfully served this country for 30 or

more years.

I have attached a four-page summary of the problem. along with

suggested solutions, to this statement.

Another example of an abrupt change involves those who had committed

themselves to military service along with the expectation of receiving

Chapter 34 V.A. educational assistance. This is particularly applicable

to the 1977 and 1978 classes at the various military academies. In

197C the Vietnam Era G.I. B/11 was prospectivelyrepealed. This

adversely affected those service academy cadets and midshipmen who had

entered the armed services and had made seven-year active duty

commitments prior to the 1976 repeal. In many cases, these commitments

181

178

were based upon, among other considerations, the expectation of G.I.

BIll eligibility. While it is quite clear from the legislative history

that Congress did not intend to retroactively exclude any service-

members from the Vietnam Era G.I. Bill, the 1976 repeal inadvertently

failed to protect the interests of academy cadets and midshipmen.

In the last Congress, the Veterans Administration submitted

legislation, with the support of this Administration, to correct this.

inequity. However, for reasons unknown, sio action was ta,en.

According to the best available data, the cost of restoring eligibility

to the two affected classes would be minimal. Considering the gross

inequ ties involved and the minimal costs, I would hope that the

attached proposed amendment would be included as a rider to legislation

to make improvements to the Montgomery G.I. Bill.

This concludes my statement. I will attempt to answer any questions

that the members of the Committee may ask.

2 Enclosures:

1. Adjustments to New G.I. Bill

2. Proposed Amendment

-7-

182

1 '79

ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRED TO THE "NEW G.I. BILL"

ISSUE

The "New G.I. Bill", Chapter 30 of Title 38 U.S.C.A., provideseducational benefits for servicemembers who entered the Armed Forcesafter July 1, 1985 and certain veterans eligible under previous G.I.bill statutes. However, the provisions of the "New G.I. Bill" fail tocover certain other veterans who have long periods of active duty andretire prior to attainment of the eligibility date of 30 June 1988.This eligibility delimiting period provides greater benefits to servicemembers with as little as three years of service than some who havefaithfully served this country for 30 or more years. An adjustment tothe provisions of the New G.I. Bill statute would rectify thisinequity.

BACKGROUND*

Congress has over the years enacted a series of laws, popularly knownas'"GI Bills", covering veterans of World.War II, the Korean conflict.th.., Post-Korean Period, and the period of Southeast 'a hostilities,respectively. A major aim of these "Bills" was, and is, to provideeducation and training opportunities to affected personnel.

The World War II educational benefit consisted of payments by theGovernment on behalf of a veteran pursuing a course of education ortraining, for books, tuition, and customary fees, not to exceed $500for an ordinary school year. In addition, a subsistence allowance waspaid directly to the veteran. The period of entitlement to educationbenefits was determined by the length of the veteran's World War IIservice, with a four year maximum period of entitlement. With minorexceptions. this program ended July 25, 1956.

The education benefits made available to veterans of the Koreanconflict, unlike the World War II program, did not permit payment tothe educational institution for tuition, books, ecc., but limited thebenefit to the stipend paid diractly to the veteran. The period ofentitlement to educational benefits was determined by the length of theveteran's Korean conflict service, with the maximum period ofentitlement generally being three years. For the purpose of thisprogram, the "Korean Conflict" was considered to have started June 27,1950 and to have ended January 31, 1955, except that, for persons onactive duty on January 31, 1955, the ending date was postponed untilthe date of such person's first discharge or release from active dutyafter Jaruary 31, 1955. Under any circumstances, however, payment ofeducational assistance based on Korean-conflict service terminatedJanuary 31, 1965.

*Sourc::: The background section of this paper was extracted from theDerartment a Defense Military Compensation Background Papers, ThirdEdition, June, 1987.

I (a)

183

180

The Veterans' Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966, as amended, is thebasic "G.I. Bill for veterans of the post-Korean "Cold War" and thecsriod of Southeast Asia hostilities. Under this Act, an educationalassistance allowance could be paid (by the Veterans' Administration) to(1) an other-than-dishonorablely-discharged veteran who had served onactive duty for more then 180 days any part of which occurred afterJanuary 31, 1955, or who, regardless of length of service, had beendischarged or released from active duty after such date for aservice-connected disability of (2) an individual who had served morethan 180 days in an active-duty status for so long as he tontine n

active duty without a break therein.

The period of entitlement to educational benefits under this programwas determined by the length of the veteran's active service during thepost-Korean period and the period of Southeast Asia hostilities, withentitlement to assIstancs for one and one-half months (or theequivalent in part-time assistance) accruing for each month of activeservice after Jar nary 31, 1955. However, once a veteran had served aperiod of 18 montns or more on active duty after January 31, 1955, andhad'been released from such service under conditions that would satisfyhis active duty obligations, he was entitled to educational assistancefor a period of 36 month, with 9 months of additional entitlement forIse in pursuing a program leading to a standard undergraduate collegedegree.

The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974established a new "G.I. Bill" for, in the main, persons who served onactive duty for 180 or more days betweSn January 31, 1955, and January1, 1977. To be eligible, a veteran must either Male been discharged orreleased from active duty under conditions other than dishonorable orbecause of 4 service-connected disability. Eligible veterans areent:.tted to one and one-half months of educational assistance for eachmonth (or fraction) of active duty during the qualifying period. In

general, a veteran must make use of hia educational assistanceentitlement within ten years of his last discharge or release fromactive duty. Monthly rates for educational assistance allowances varydepending on the type of training the recipient is getting(institutional or cooperative), the amount of time the recipient isspending on the program (full time, three-fourths time, or half time),and the number of dependents the recipient has.

The Veterans' Educational and Employment Assistance Act of 1976replaced the preexisting veterans' educational assistance program withthe so-called "Post Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational AssistanceProgri.' (VEAP). As a."-Tted, VEAP provides educational assistance toall members of the armed forces first entering military service on orafter January 1, 1977, whereas the preexisting GI bill continues toapply to all personnel who first entered the service before that date.

Whil %E.7.^ is in any respects similar to earlier veterans' educ,,;:ionalassistance programs, it differs in several important respects. Whereasearlier omgrams had been more or less automatic in their application,VEAP is contributory, with contributions by a servicemember being a

2 (a)

184

181

condition of entitlement. The Department of Defense matches aservicemember's contributions on a $2 for $1 basis. The maximumeducational benefit availlble under basic VEAP is $8,100, $2,700 ofwhich is contributed by the servicemember. The servicemember'scontribution may be made monthly, at rates varying from $25 to $100 permonth, or in a lump sum paid before the end of the member' first termof obligated service, but no matter how the contributim, is made, itmay not exceed $2,700 in the aggregate.

The Veterans' Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (the Montgomery G.I.Bill) established two new educational assistance programs for militarypersonnel and former military personnel: "All-Volunteer ForceEducational Assistance Program" and "Educational Assistance for Membersof the Selected Reserve".

The All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program consists of anumber of integrated provisions. The basic benefit accrues at the rateof $300 per month for military personnel who serve on active duty forthree years and at the rate of $250 per month for personnel who serveon active duty for two years. In both caves, the benefits are payablefor a maximum of 36 months. New entrants are ultimately covered unlessthey elect not to participate.

The Educational Assistance Program applies to persons who first becomemembers of the Armed Forces or who first enter on active duty on or.after July 1, 1985, but before July 1, 1988.

The Veterans' Educational Assistance Act of 1984 also established aneducational assistance benefit specifically for members of the SelectedReserve. Under this later program, members of the Selected Reservereceive a $140 per month entitlement for up to 36 months of benefits.To qualify, an individual is required to enlist, reenlist, or extend Lnexisting enlistment for a six-year period an the Selected Reserve. Theprogram is limited to high school graduates or persona who havereceived equivalency certificates by the completion of the requiredperiod of initial active duty for training. The amount of theentitlement is $105 per month for persons pursuing education on athree-quarters-time basis and $70 per month for half-time.

Like the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program, theprogram for members of the Selected ?eserve applies during the periodof July 1, .985, to June 30, 1988.

These programs were made permanent by the Montgomery G.I. Bill Act of1984.

PROBLEM

Although certain specified veterans who are eligible under the VietnamEra G.I. Bill also are eligible for benefits under the Montgomery G.I.Bill, certain others with extensive military service are not. Forexample, servicemembers with an much as 30 or more years of service whoretire prior to eligibility date of 30 June 1988 for Chapter 30

3 (a)

.185

182

(Montgomery G.I. Bill) are only eligible for the provisions of Chapter34. the "old (Vietnam Era) G.I. Bill" which expires in December 1989.Under the current eligibility rules of the existing statutes, affectedservicemembers would have had to stop serving their country in 1985take full advantage of the educational enti invents the governmentcommitted to them at the time they entered the service. This group whochose to continue to serve their country above exercising post-servicebenefits, quite naturally expected that the country would honor itscommitment to them whenever they completed their faithful service.This reasonable expectation is supported by Congressional enactment ofChapter 30 of the "New G.I. Bill" which provides 36 months ofeducational benefits for individuals who enter the service in July 1985and remain on continuous active duty through June 1988 as a minimun.The built-in inequity then is that a person only eligible under Chapter34, with many years of service, retzring after December 1986, has lessbenefits than a person who is on active duty for three years from June1985 to June 1988. Additionally, as the retirement dates of theaffected servicemembers move closer to June 1918, their opportunitiesfor receiving bc.afits under Chapter 34 diminish and the inequitybecomes greater. Compounding the inequity, ,any sersicemembers in thissituation will reach their high year of tenure and be forced to retireprior to 30 June 1988. These individuals will be denied theopportunity to earn entit/ements under the Montgomery C.I. Bill. Many,by virtue of their long-standing military service, are either Korean orVietnam (or both) veterans.

SOLUTIONS

o Extend the provision of Chapter 34 to 1995 which would provide forthe full eligibility under Chapter 34 for those who retire prior to 30June 1988 and are only eligible for Chapter 34 provisions.

o Extend the eligibility provisions of Chapter 30 to all perecnnelcurrently on active duty who are eligible for Chapter 34 but noteligible under Chapter 30.

4 (a)

183

AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY

THE RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

To amend title 38, United States Code, to treat individuals who

had commenced the third academic year as a cadet or

midshipman at one of the service academies before January 1,

1977, as veterans of the Vietnam Era for purposes of

eligibility to educational assistance under Chapter 34 of

such title.

Section 1. (a) Section 1652(a)(1) of title 38, United States

Code, is amended7

(1) by striking out the period at the end of clause (C)

and inserting in lieu thereof "; or"; and

(2) by adding at the end of such section the following

new clause:

"(D) had served as a cadet or midshipman at one of the

service academies and had commenced the third academic

year at one of the service academies before January 1,

1977, if

(i) the individual's service as a cadet or midshipman

at one of the service academies led to graduation,

(ii) the individual served on active duty for a period

of more than 180 days aftex graduation, and

(iii) the individual was discharged or released from

active duty under conditions other than dishonorable."

(k) Section 1652(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is

amended by striking out "or (B)," and inserting in lieu thereof

",(B) or (D), ".

1 (b)

.1 8 7

184

Section 2. (a) The Amendment made by the first section of this

Act shall be effective as of January 1, 1977.

(b) An individual who is eligible for educational assistance

by reason of the amendment made by the first section of this Act,

and who enrolled in the euucational benefits program under

chapter 32 of title 38, United States Code, before the date of

enactment of this Act, may elect to be disenrolled from sucu

.ogram in accordance with ,rbsection (d) of this section. Any

amount contributed by such individual to the Post-Vietnam Era

Veterans educational Account shall me refunded within 60 days of

receipt by the Administrator of an application ly such individual

for refund. If such individual has already drawn chapter 32

educational benefits, the refund shall also include the

difference between what the individual has already received and

what the individual would have received under chapter 34. Any

amount contributed by the Secretary of Deferse to the

Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational Account on behalf of such

individual pursuant to section 1622(c) of such title shall be

refunded to the Secretary within ten days after the date of

mailing of a refund to such individual.

(c) An individual who is eligible for educational assistance by

reason of the amendment made by the first section of this Act,

and who has already incurred educational expenses at a qualified

educational institution without having enrolled in the

educational benefits program under chapter 32 of title 38, United

States Code, may apply for chapter 34 educational assistance for

the educational expenses already incurred.

(d) In order for an individual who would otherwise be eligible

for chapter 34 educational assistance by reason of the amendment

made by the first section of this Act to become eligible for

chapter 34 educational benefits, he must affirmatively elect such

eligibility, and file such election with the Veterans

Administration before the expiration of the Vietnam Era G.I.

Bill. Any individual who makes the election provided for in this

subsection shall be ineligible for assistance under chapter 32.

Such an election is irrevocable.

$8

185

STATEMENT BY

ALBERT H. FRIEDRICH

PAST NATIONAL PRESIDENT

NAVY LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING AND FMPLOYMENT

OF THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

ON THE

MONTGOMERY GI BILL

October 14, 1987

189

186

Testimony of Albert H. Friedrich, Navy League of the US, October 14, 1987

Mr. Chairman and members cf the Subcommittee:

The Navy Leap: of the Weed Settes has strongly supported theMontgomery GI Pill from its inception, and we are pleased to appear beforethis subcomittee to comment on the resolutions proposing to fine tunecortatc ieatures of this outstanding legislation.

As a member and past National President of the Navy League, I em here

today representing more than 61,000 Americans dedicated to the support of cstrong military which depends on the availability and recruitment of ournation's young men and women. I should point out that, unlike othermilitary support organizations, none of the Navy League's members is onactive duty with any branch of the Armed Services; nor is the League anorganization estricted to retired or former members of sne military. in

fact, more than fifty percent (50%) of our members have never served in the

Armed Forces. Navy Leaguers are ordinary citizens from all walks of lifewho are convinod that this nation needs a strong and viable Navy, Marine

Corps, Coast Guard and merchant marine. Our objectives are education and

motivation -- to awaken interest, to encourage cooperation, and to supportall matters /ditch aid and improve our maritime capabilities.

The Navy League is dedicated not only to a strong defense but toensuring that the youth of our nation are given every opportunity to servetheir country and to continue their education, than:by becoming moreproductive members of our society.

Durir.g the Navy League's National Convention, a resolution was adopted

which states: "Recognizing that the GI Bill plays an important role in the

personal excellence program with educational benefits for military person-nel, the Navy League of the United States fully endorses retention of thisvaluable benefit which serves as a recruitment incentive as well as atransitional vehicle to civilian employment." These words could not be

more appropriate or better state the Navy League's feeling toward theMontgomery GI Bill, especially in 'view of the spiraling costs of a college

education today.The VEAP educational program was not doing its job, so the Montgomery

GI Bill was enacted to impact recruiting, retention, and personnel qualityof the Armed Forces in a positive manner. Reports received by the Navy

League indicate this legislation has more than proved its worth during the

short time it has been a law of the land.As is the case with many resolutions, the final product is never

perfect. We are here today to consider possible improvements to the

Montgomery GI Bill.Earlier this summer, the Navy League testified in support of H. R.

3001 which woufd amend the Montgomery GI Bill to permit certain survivorsof military personnel who die on active duty to receive a death benefit

from the educational funds accrued. Now, the Navy League has been asked to

comment upon other proposed modifications to the Montgomery GI Bill -- par-ticularly the provisos contained within H. R. 2950, H. R. 3180 and H. R.

3280.In regard to H. R. 2950, the Navy League opposes including flight

training as en approved , "ucational program under the Montgomery GI Bill.Records indicate that fl.g'it training serves to enhance one's ability toenjoy flying in recreational and avocational settings rather than aiding in

basic employment opportunities. Therefore, in our opinion, neither theobjectives nor the spirit of providing readjustment benefits would be metby including flight training under the Montgomery GI Bill.

H. R. 3180 is divided into three (3) areas se:lich I would ,ike to cover

separately. This bill would extend to the recruit the opportunity todisenroll from the program at the end of the recruit's basic training. The

Navy League opposes this provision.Procedures being adopted by the Navy and the other maritime services

will cause automatic deductions for the educational benefits to occur inthe first full month to which the sober of the service is entitled 'o payThe League and the Navy folly support the intent of the law of autos

enrolling a member unless an election to disenroll is made upon entry

into active duty. The Navy is placing greater emphasis on having itsrecruits fully informed of the educational benefits prior to reporting for

active duty. With increased benefit awareness Programs at recruits priorto reporting for duty, it would sees that the present burden of making thisimportant decision in such a short time is removed. Extending the decision

period for the recruit could, in reality, cause more problems for both therecruit and the service than having the decision made in the first two

weeks of active duty.

190

187

Section 2 of N. R. 3180 addresses the pay reduction issue. Despitethe tremendous popularity of the Montgomery GI Bill, the majority of newrecruits feel that the pay reductions are too severe. This impression wasgained during an orientation trip on which the Navy League's ExecutiveDirector, Rear Admiral W. Gene Sizemore (USN-Retired), was privileged toaccompany Chairman Montgomery and others of the subcommittee while visitingthe recruit commands.

A rezruit receives only $524 per month, and the $100- monthly deduction-- which represents twenty percent (20%) of the recruit's monthly pay -- isa sizeable sum. The Navy League certainly supports reducing the monthlydeductions, but we would prefer to see the payment formula changed to $60per month for twenty (20) months with no other option being offered.Having gone through recruit training myself, I feel that the options shouldbe limited and the chance for paperwork mistakes be kept to a minimum. Byadopting a 20-month payment window, the recruit is zssured of contributingthe full $1,200 in the event 0 an early discharge from miiitary service.Quite often, two-year enlistees are discharged early for a number ofreasons -- including "at the convenience of the government."

The issue of transferability is add d in Section 3 of N. R. 3180.There are a cumber of situations which can arise to prevent servicemembersfrom using the educational benefits to which they are entitled, and theexec ,f such situations are too numerous to detail here. It would,therefore, seem more reasonable to offer transferability earlier in theiervicemember's career, after completing ten (10) years of active duty andremaining on active duty. This would serve as a retention tool to supple-ment the Selective Reenlistment Bonus program already in existence.

Let a now move to some of the issues contained within N. R. 3208.The Navy League's position on allowing the recruit to have the required$1,200 payment extended over a greater period of time (Section 2 of N. R.3206) is outlined previously. The League fully supports $60/month fortwenty (20) months as being a very sensible and acceptable approach.

Section 3 of N. R. 3208 proposed to allow the recruit sixty (60) daysto decide on enrollment or disenrollment. This same issue was add d inrelation to N. R. 3180. However, let xi just add here by saying that thelonger a recruit has to decide, especially once the first month of trainingis finished, the more opportunities there are for the servicemember todecide to disenroll in order to spend the money for other items -- a car,television, stereo, camera or other its that young people feel they need.Conversely, enrolling after a month or two of delay might prevent therecruit from fully donating to the program to become eligible.

Section 3 of H. R. 3208 also provides for a one-time 60-day window toenroll those servicemembers who disenrolled previously. It may be thatinitial briefings provided to recruits did not properly emphasize or orientthee about the benefits provided by the Montgomery GI Bill. The low par-ticipation rate of eighteen percent (18%) initially experienced by the Navyseems to bear this out. After diserrolling previously, there are numerousrequests from servicemembers asking to be given a second chance to enrollin the educational program provided by the Montgomery GI Bill. It seemsonly fair to give the individuals specified under this provision anotheropportunity to take advantage of the Montgomery GI Bill in view of theshortcomings in the initial briefings or presentations by some of theservices.

The issue. of transferability in H. R. 3208 is add J in the portionof ay statmw,nt related to H. R. 3180. Briefly, the Navy League supportstransferability after ten (10) years of service because it is an excellentretention incentive.

The final portion of H. R. 3208, Section 5, would provide a compensa-tion payment in the event of an eligible servicesember's death or dis-ability (mental or physical). The payment would be the amount deductedfrom the servicemembr's pay. The Navy League supports including thelanguage of Section 5 in whatever legislation emerges from this subcom-mittee and believes that these monies, accrued as a result of self contri-butions and personal sacrifices, belong to the servicesember's family --not to the U. S. Treasury.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giv'lg me the opportunity to testifybefore this subcommittee on behalf of the Navy League of the United States.

I stand ready to ansrer your questions.

79-871 0 - 88 - 7 .191

188

Statement of

DAVID PASSAMANECKAMVETS National Legislative Director

Before The

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETANS' AFFAIRS

To Review the Implementation and Effectivenessof the Montgomery GI Bill and Comment on

H.R. 2950, H.R. 32C9 and H.R. 3180

10:00 a.m., October 14, 1987

Room 334, Cannon House Office Building

189

AMVETS is pleased to have this opportunity to appear at this

review of the Montgomery GI Bill and comment on H.R. 2950. H.R. 3208

and H.R. 3180.

AMVETS was the only major veterans' organization to unequivocally

support this program in its original form as H.R. 1400, 98th

Congress which was enacted into law as Title VII, Public Law

98-525. We recognized from the beginning that this program

would have a tremendously beneficial offect on both recruitment

for the armed forces and the restoration of veterans to civilian

life. We specifically did not object to t. t VA funding the

bulk of the cost of the program even though it is also a recruiting

incentive, at least in its initial impact.

The program has proven itself to be one of the most successful

enacted in the post-Vietnam era. As the only major veterans'

organization whose ranks are open to post-Vietnam veterans generally,

we take special pleasure in commencing this historic contribution

made possible by the persistent leadership of Chairman Montgomery.

AMVETS is pleased to support the extension of educational assistance

to flight training in courses accredited by the FAA and applicable

state authorities, as provided by H.R. 2950, introduced by you,

Mr. Chairman.

Both H.R. 3180, introduced by Mr. Smith of New Jersey and H.R. 3208

propose to amend the Montgomery GI Bill so as to mole equitably

apply the benefits provided by the program and remove existing

requirements for participation in the program which in many

cases have proved to be disincentives. Mr. Smith's bill would

postpone the member's decisic. to participate until after completion

of basic training as defined by the Secretary concerned, and

give an option to the member of contributing $100 a month for

the first 12 months he or she is entitled to pay or $50 a month

for the first 24 months. H.R. 3180 also provides for transfer

of the entitlemert under the program in whOle or in part to

'193

190

the member's child, spouse or surviving spouse, during the pendency

of the member's active duty or in the event of death, discharge

for hardship, service-connected disability or completion of

20 years of active duty, or in the case of reservists, completion

20 combined years of active duty and duty in the Selected Reserve.

H.R. 3208, introduced by Mr. Jontz contains similar provisions

to H.R. 3180. However, H.R. 3208 would allow a pa,lent option

of $60 a month for the first 20 months. H.R. 3208 also contains

a provision for refund of the member's monetary contribution

to the program in the event the member is determined by the

VA to be physically or mentally unable to utilize educational

assistance, or payment of the contribution, in the event of

the member's death to his or her benefic.aries designated in

the member's GI insurance, or the surviving spouse, children

or parents in that order. Mr. Jontz's bill would allow the

Secretary concerned to give the member up to 60 days to elect

participation in the program and give all current members who

have declined participation, 60 days of grace from date of enactment

to participate.

AMVETS supports the provisions of both H.R. 3208 and H.R. 3180

for transfer of the educational entitlement or right of survivorship

for the member's children or spouse for the purpose of participation

in the program. However, we do not subscribe to the transformation

of such survivorship into a supplemental life insurance program.

As we stated to this subcommittee on August 6, 1987:

The guidelines set forth in Chapter 35 of Title 38

United States Code, particularly in Section 1701,

should provide comparable criteria for entitlement

to recovery of a member's contribution to the Montgomery

GI Bill program. We specifically support use of the

funds thus made available to the survivors of 100%

service-connected disabled veterans and those missing

-2-

194

191

in action or held.prisoner in accordance with Section

1701 of Title 38 United States Code. Paying the unredeemed

contribution to the Montgomery GI Bill program to

parents of a deceased member would appear to be beyond

the intended scope of the program. In addition to

the eligibility criteria set forth in Chapter 35 of

Title 38 United States Code, we would favor payment

of a veteran's unredeemed contribution to the Montgomery

GI Bill program to survivors for educational purposes

if the veteran dies during the period of eligibility.

Consequently, with the exception of refund of the member's contri-

bution in the event of his incapacity to Lake advantage of the

program, as provided in H.R. 3208, AMVETS would not favor any

payments to survivors fcr other than educational purposes, or

to parents in any event.

-3-

195

192

PARALYZED VETERANSOF AMERICAChartered by the Congressof the United States

STATEMENT OF

FRANK R. DEGEORGE, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR

PARAP778D VETERANS OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT

OF THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

REGARDING THE

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS

OF THE

MONTGOMERY G.I. BILL

AND COMMENTS ON H.R. 2950, H.R. 3208 and H.R. 3180

OCTOBER 14, 1987

Kr. Chairman and Member of the Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America

(PVA) appreciates this opportunity to express our views regarding the

implementation and operation of the Montgomery G.I. Bill. I am Frank R.

DeGeorge, Associate Legislative Director for Paralyzed Veterans of America.

As requested, I would also like to summarize our views on H.R. 2950, H.R.

3208 and H.R. 3180 currently pending before the Subcommittee.

801 Eighteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) USA-1300

196

193

At the outset, Mr. Chairman, PVA would like to express its sincerest

congratulations to you, this Subcommittee, and especially to tle Chairman of

the Full Committee and author of this new education program, the Honorable

C.V. (Sonny) Montgomery, for the successful passage and enactment of the

Montgomery G.I. Bill. The President's signature on H.R. 5167 (Public Law

100-48) marked the culmination of over eight years of dedication and hard

work on your part to convince the Congress and the Administration of what PVA

has always believed to be self-evident.

The G.I. Bill has proven, in the past, to be one of the most significant

federal programs ever enacted. The contributions to our society stemming

from the G.I. Bill have strengthened our national economy, our national

defense, and the lives and ,selfare of generations of American veterans and

their families. The G.I. Bill, designed primarily as a readjustment benefit,

is also one of the most important recruitment incentives for military

service, offering significant educational opportunities to a wide spectrum of

young American men und women who wish to serve their country in the Armed

Forces of the United States.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, PVA is proud to have played a very small,

but hopefully constructive, role in the support of the reenactment of this

program. The "Blood, Sweat and Tears" on your part in fighting to see the

Montgomery G.I. Bill become law will pay off a thousand-fold in the future.

In the true tradition of all veterans' benefits, the Montgomery G.I. Bill, by

recognizing service to country, will help keep America strong and free.

197

194

The Montgomery G.I. Bill was signed into law June 1, 1987. We believe it is

difficult to adequately grade the implementation of the program based on only

four months experience of full and permanent operation. The predecessor to

the Montgomery G.I. Bill, the New G.I. Bill, enacted in 1985, as this

Subcommittee well knows, was only a temporary or pilot program. As such,

utilizing cumulative participation rates as indicators of the quality of the

implementation of the program from 1985 to the present might be somewhat

clouded by the fact that the New G.I. Bill, as any new program, had to

undergo the stresses and strains of "start-up" and certain reluctance in

implementation on the part of the service branches due to the perceived,

temporary nature of the program. For these reasons, we understand that

participation rates from July of 1985 to August 1987 show a cumulative total

of 61.0 percent of enlistees in all service branches enrolling in the

program.

However, a more realistic benchmark of the success of the Montgomery G.I.

Bill, since it became a permanent program can be seen in the following

participation rates for August 1987.

Army 91.8%Navy 56.3%

Air Force 61.2%

Marine Corps 73.9%

Total DOD 75.5%

While there is always room for improvement, these rates, particularly the

percentages reported by the Army, clearly indicate that the Montgomery G.I.

Bill is off and running. We are certain that Chairman Montgomery and this

Subcommittee will keep a watchful eye on the implementation of the program as

it develops and matures in the months and years ahead. As in the past, PVA

3

198

195

will be happy and villiah to provide any assistance in this regard to the

Subcommittee in the future.

Mr. Chairman, as requested, PVA would like to comment on the three bills

pending before the Subcommittee which would amend the Montgomery G.I. Bill:

H.R. 3180, introduced by Representative Smith of New Jersey; H.R. 3208,

introduced by Representative Jontz; and your bill H.R. 2950.

H.R. 3180 and H.R. 3208 have several similar provisions which we would like

to address collectively. Subsequently, we will then comment on several

features :hat are unique to each of the individual bills.

Amount of Reduction of Pay and Period of knrollment

Both H.R. 3180 and H.R. 3208 would extend the election period for enrollment

in the Montgomery G.I. Bill from the point of enlistment to a specified

period of active duty service. H.R. 3180 would extend the period through

basic training, while H.R. 3208 would extend the period up to 60 days of

active duty. We understand that the additional period would be designed to

give young recruits more time to fully weigh the merits of enrolling in the

educational assistance program.

Both H.R. 3180 and H.R. 3208 would provide for the extension of the period of

the reduction in basic pay for enrolled recruits to reach their maximum

contribution level for eligibility ($1,200). Currently, the law states that

the reduction should be $100 per month for the first 12 months. H.R. 3180

would provide for reductions of $50 each month for the first 24 months. H.R.

3208 calls for $60 each month for the first 20 months.

4

199

196

H.R. 3208 would also provide for a "grace period" of 60 days following

enactment of the legislation during which active duty personnel, who had

previously declined enrollment in the Montgomery G.I. Bill prior to

enlistment, could then reconsider and sign up for program eligibility.

PVA finds all of the above provisions worth careful, but cautious,

consideration at this time. Undoubtedly, these measures were designed to

address specific problems perceived with the implementation of the program

during its pilot phase and in its short life thus far as a permanent program.

We understand and can appreciate the concern of the authors of these

legislative proposals in seeking to address these matters. However, with the

Montgomery G.I. Bill only four months old, we would recommend that the

Subcommittee wait until the program has been in full operation for at least a

year before making these or other changes. We believe the Committee should

have additional time to fully evaluate the depth and extent of these and any

other potential problem areas.

Transferability

Both H.R. 3180 and H.R. 3208 would authorize the transfer, under certain

circumstances, of all or part of a service member's education entitlement to

his or her dependents. Since first testifying before this Subcommittee on

proposed G.I. Bill legislation in the early 1980's, PVA has opposed enactment

of a transferability provision. We believe that the Montgomery G.I. Bill, as

previous veterans' educational assistance programs before it, is designed

primarily as a readjustment benefit for the veteran. In addition, in

reviewing the record of past G.I. Bills, there are substantial economic and

5

200

197

social benefits already accrued tangentially by spouses and family members

from the veterans' own use of his or her own education entitlement.

Transferring that entitlement to one's children could even, der certain

circumstances, dilute the importance of the G.I. Bill as a recruitment

incentive for military service to the next and subsequent generations. For

these reasons, and, apart from the additional cost of the provision, we

believe transferability to be inconsistent with the current nature and

purpose of veterans' benefits and services.

Compensation Payments

H.R. 3208 would provide for compensation payment in the form of a death

benefit paid to certain survivors of individuals who are entitled to

education benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill. The death benefit would

be in the amount of the reduction in basic pay made by the service member to

qualify for entitlement. As we previously testified earlier this year 61 a

similar provision contained in H.R. 3001 introduced by you, Mr. Chairman, PVA

supports this measure as b3ing a fair and compassionate amendment to the

Montgomery G.I. Bill.

H.R. 3208 would also provide a compensation payment in the same amount "to an

individual with respect to whom the Administrator has made a determination

... has become so physically or mentally disabled that he or she is unable to

utilize such educational assistance." PVA believes this to be a worthy

amendment to the program, but with certain reservations.

The assessment of total physical or mental disability can be, st tines, an

6

201

198

arbitrary or inconsistent determination. Judging from the position of our

own membership, all of whom have incurreJ &Onal cord injury or dysfunction,

we are of many individuals who have suffered the most severe

catastrophic disabling injuries, but for whom there is still the opportunity

for rehabilitation, education, and retraining in order to lead productite

lives. A number of years ago, this might not have been the case. However,

PVA as an organization, and the VA for Oat matter, should be proud of the

part we have played in advancing medical science, rehabilitation techniques

and awareness of the needs of disabled individuals to provide opportunities

and & better way of life for even the most catastrophically disabled

individuals.

In granting this compensation payment, report language should accompany the

legislation to make certain the Administrator takes all factors affncting

potential cure, recovery or rehabilitation of the individual into account.

In this way, safeguards must be taken to ensure that the compensation payment

does not prematurely eliminate future entit)ement. We envision that the

Administrator's determiation would be made under the most extreme and severe

circumstances, such as in the case of an individual who is medically

determined irreversibly comatose. Under such circumstances, we suggest that

the language of the provision be amended to allow the compensation payment to

the individual's trustee orlegal guardian.

Flight Training - H.R. 2950

PVA appreciates Chairman Dowdy's interest and concern in ieroducing this

legislation. However, we cannot support the till at this time. As you know,

flight training authorization was removed from title 38, U.S.C., as an

authorized ',Ingram under the Vietnam Era G.I. Bill. The reasons for this at

that time were based on both the cost of the program and the fact that a GAO

review found that large percentage of veterans were enrolling in flight

training for avocational or recreational purposes rather than vocational

pursuits. For these reasons we believe it would be unwise and inconsistent

to restore flight training to the Montgomery G.I. Bill at this time.

Hr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony. I will be happy to respond to

any questions you might have.

202

199

STATEMENT OF

JAMES N. MAGILL, DIRECTORNATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE

VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENTCOMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WITH RESPECT TO

THE MONIGOV/RY CI BILL

WASHINGTON, D. C. OCTOBER 14, 1987

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

Thank you for the privilege of appearing before this distinguishedSubcommittee to present the views of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the UnitedStates with respect to the implewentation and effectiveness of the Montgomery CIBill as well as several legislative proposals which would amend this highlysuccessful program. At the outset, I would like to commend the Chairman forholding this hearing, demonstrating his and the Subcommittee's continuing concernfor our nation's veterans.

Mr. Chairman, since its enactment, the New CI Bill has been a resoundingsuccess. In previous testimony before this Subcommittee, the YEW has stated thisprogram is dollar for dollar the most coat - effective means of recruitment now inexistence. We are also convinced, the program is, across the board, the besteducational incentive the Department of Defense has to offer today. Furthermore,this educational benefit program is paying for itself by improving recruitingquality end reducing turnover in personnel.

Earlier this year, the Congress recognized the value and merits of the NewCI Bill by passing legislation to make it a permanent program as well as renamingit the Montgomery CI Bill. Today, the Montgomery CI Bill is exceeding allexpectations. Approximately 901 of all new Army recruits are signing up. Theother service branches all boast of having over a 50% participation rate.Overall, almost 70% of the members of the armed forces are participating in theMontgomery CI Sill. Since the program began in July, 1985, over 330 thousandactive duty personnel have opted to participate, and it is estimated by this timenext year over one-half million men and women will either have signed up or willbe attending a college or university under the program.

Information available to the VFW indicates the program is for the most partrunning smoothly and efficiently. However, we have heard reports that in somecases recruiters have not been thoroughly instructing potential recruits as tothe provisions of the Montgomery GI Bill. We believe it is imperativerecruiters give a comprehensive explanation of the program so that potentialrecruits have every opportunity to make an informed decision.

Mr. Chairman, in your letter of invitation to appear before thisSubcommittee today, you have asked the VFW to comment on three bills which wouldamend the Montgomery CI Bill. H.R. 3208, introduced by Mr. Jim Jontz, makesseveral changes as does Mr. Christopher Smith's bill, H.R. 3180. The third bill.H.R. 2950, introduced by the Chairman of this Subcommittee, provides for flighttraining under the Montgomery CI Bill.

Earlier this year, the VFW was invited to visit four recruit trainingcommands and discuss the education program with those undergoing basic training.Repeatedly, we were told by those who elected not to participate in the educationprogram that had they been given more time to make a decision, they would havechosen to participate. H.R. 3180 provides for a decision to be made at the

203

200

conclusion of basic training while A.R. 3208 allows an individual to decideduring a period established by the Secretary concerned but net to exceed GO daysotter be/she firsresters active duty. The Vilf believes it would be in the bestinterest of the recruit to allow additional time for a decision to be made, andwe, therefore, support the extessios of the time period for enrollment. Isesmuchas Mr. Soots' bill provides for a sore flexible period and is all likelihoodwould allow a recruit to immediately enroll is the progress if be has already modea decision, we favor N.R. 32M. We also favor allowing individuals who initiallyrejected participation in the education program the opportunity to reconsider.

Is meeting with the recruits, it also Deceive apparent to the VIM that thecontribution schedule of *100 a meth for 12 meths is a setter of cot:tern forthe participate. The recruits stated they hoped a revised formula could beimplemented that would entail lesser amounts over a looser period. In responseto this request, both N.R. 3180 sod N.R. 3208 provide for an alternativeschedule. While both bills retain the ...signal schedule of *100 a mouth for 12meths, M.R. 3180 provides an optics of $50 a mouth for 24 months end N.S. 3208provides en opt!** of SAO a south for 20 mosthu. The VFW support,. givingrecruits an slternatire payment schedule. We belie s both bills offer realisticalternatives and w. would support whichever schedule the Congress or theSecretary concerned adopts.

Both A.R. 3180 and N.R. 3208 provide for the transfer of entitlement todepeudents. :be 104 historically has opposed a transferability provision becausewe view edu2atioA a readjustment program. We are also concerned that shorld atruster amendment be adopted, a reduction in the pool of eligibles for futuremilitary service mey occur. Wowever, in light of the fact the Wutgomery CI Billis a contributory program and also a viable retention tool for the militaryservices, the VFW will not oppose the transfer provision..

Finally, Mr. Choirs's, A.R. 2950, introduced by you, would mend tinMonegouery CI Bill so as to allow flight training as an oducatiosel pursuit. Asyou know, flight training was at one time available to Vietnam veteransparticipating in the Vietnam -Era CI Bill but for certain reasons yes elisiratedas a course of study. Insomuch as the Vistess-Irs CI Bill is still a currentPogrom, the VFW does not believe it proper to authorise a particular program topeacetime veterans while at the same time denying it to 'anise veterans. Forthis reason, the VFW cannot( At this time, support A.R. 2950.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairmen, and I will be happy -..pond toany questions you may have.

204

1111IMMIIIIM11IiIN11111111111111111111MIIMINIP1411%.1111

201

'41311 AIRCRAFT OWNERS & PILOTS ASSOCIAllON421 Aviation Way, Fredenck Auloirt. Fredenck. MD 21701. Telephone (3011695 2000/Telex 89-3445

STATEMENT OF JOHN L. BAKER, PRESIDENT

AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION

CCHMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT

HONORABLE WAYNE DOWDY, CHAIRMAN

U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 14, 1987

REGARDING VETERANS' EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS

Mr. Chairman, I am John Baker, president of the Aircraft Owners and PilotsAssociation (AOPA). AOPA represents the national aviation interests of 260,000pilot members who own and operate general aviation aircraft for business andpersonal reasons. We are very concerned with the future of general aviation andthe entire aviation community.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to the Subcommitteeon Education, Employment and Training regarding the inclusion of veterans'flight training benefits under the new G.I. Bill. This committee held a hearingon this same topic in 1985 when AOPA testified in favor of this program. Sincethat time, the national need for qualified pilots has increased dramatically andthe aviation career opportunities that could be available to veterans haveexpanded.

Mr. Chairman, thanks to your leadership Congress has recognized the careeropportunities available in aviation and you have introduced legislation, H.R.2950, to include flight training as a career opportunity for veterans.

This measure contains substantially the same language that overwhelminglypassed the House of Representatives in 1986 as section 107 of H.R. 3747.Unfortunately, the Senate did not consider similar legislation in the 99thCongress. Hopefully, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee will consider thecompanion legislation S. 820, introduced by Senator Thomas Daschle during thesecond session of this Congress to reinstate flight training for veterans.

205

202

AOPA strongly believes that as long as the federal government provides foreducational assistance to veterans to restore lost educational opportunities forthose whose careers have been interrupted by military service and to assist themin attaining the educational and vocational status that they would have achievedbut for such service, the option of flight training should be among thoseeducational courses permitted. The issue of equity in veterans' choice of

education and career remains the same. To single out flight training as beingunworthy of educational support is unfair and inequitable. In spite of

occasional abuses of this program, we are aware of no substantive evidence thatthe level of abuses in flight training exceeded those of other educationaloptions available to the veteran.

In the past, the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Veterans'Administration have alleged that flight training programs have not met the

objective of providing substantial employment for those trained and that manyindividuals have used these programs primarily for recreational or avocationalpurposes. These allegations are simply without merit once their findings are

placed in proper perspective.

In 1979, GAO found that only sixteen percent of flight trainees under theprogram had full-:time jobs directly related to this training. Their criteria

for measuring this occupational and training match was far too narrow. They

considered that only people listing occupations such as flight instructor orairline pilot as involved in an aviation occupation that related directly to thetraining. By analogy, this would be the same as saying a person who received aMasters in Business Administration degree was not properly trained for anoccupation as a college professor or association representative. I would urge

some of the traditional veterans organizations which have opposed flighttraining as an option for education benefits in the past, citing this flawed GAOreport to take a close look at the faulty methods GAO employed in coming up withtheir report, and come out in support of H.R. 2950.

Flight training offers unique alternatives to veteran graduates. Salesmen,

newsmen, ranchers, architects, insurance representatives, doctors and thoseengaged in numerous other occupations find airplanes valuable and, often, one of

the most important tools in their businesses or professions. Consequently,individuals may not be "professionally" engaged in the business of commercialflying; however, the necessary ancillary use of flight training has been

recognized as a valuable "support" tool for a wide variety of professions.

In 1978, the Veterans' Administration reported that graduates of flighttraining programs were quick to accept very limited, part-time employment forthe purpose of receiving free or reduced rate flying rather than for full-time

employment as professional pilots. This appraisal ignores the fact that in

order to secure a professional pilot's job that pays a living wage, severalthousand flight hours must be logged to demonstrate an adequate experience levelrequired to safely carry passengers or cargo for hire. In order to gain thisexperience, most developmental pilots take jobs as part-time flight instructors

or as nighttime or weekend cargo pilots flying small aircraft. This allows theaspiring corporate or airline pilot to gain the necessary level of experiencerequired by airlines and corporate flight departments, while holding another job

that pays a living wage.

-2-

206

203

Less than two percent of the millions of veterans receiving educationalbenefits over the last 19 years have been involved in flight training. First,this is a very small percentage of the total. Second, by eliminating theeligibility of flight training for veterans' educational benefits, the entireveterans group who received flight training benefits was accused of abuses.Clearly, this was not the case. I am confident that quite a high percentage ofthe veterans who received flight training under the G.I. Bill are an integralpart of our narking pilot population today.

From an even broader perspective, the United States desperately needs totrain commercially qualified pilots to fill a growing demand for professionalpilot services. Figures provided by the Future Aviation Professionals ofAmerica (FAPA), which tracks hiring patterns, clearly paints a picture of hugeincreases in aviation employment (See attached table.) For this hearing, I willemphasize the pilot shortfall for the 1987-97 time frame. FAPA's ten-year pilotprojections, based on a conservative five percent growth factor and knownretirements (FAA has a 4.9% growth factor), show thirty-two thousand airline jetpilot jobs and ten to twenty thousand nonjet regional airline pilot jobs to befilled. For comparison, consider the airlines now employ some fifty-threethousand pilots. An aging airline pilot population, which will be retiring inthe next decade, and the explosive growth in commercial air travel combine tocreate this tremendous shortage of pilots as well as flight attendants,mechanics and other jobs in the aviation industry.

Burgeoning airline, corporate aviation and utility pilot needs in theUnited States must be viewed as a part of the nation's transportation systemrequirements. If these needs are not met, the nation's economic and commercialgrowth and well-being surely will suffer, for it is air transportation in allits forms that has been one of the principal facilitating factors in America'sgrowth.

The lure of an airline or corporate flying job is not as great as it oncewas. The initial investment to become eligible for these highly technical jobsis becoming too great. A candidate for veterans' flight training benefits mustfirst obtain a private pilot.certificate using his own resources, a taskcurrently valued at around $3,500. The training to become a commercial pilotmay easily exceed $10,000 and, to receive an instrument rating, approximately$3,500. Since these qualifications are the bare minimum to qualify for even theentry-level piloting job, only the well-heeled can possibly afford this. Whenthe G.I. Bill was underwriting 90% of this, an aspiring pilot could handle thecapital investment much more easily.

Training to become a nrofessional pilot requires a unique and complicatedform of education, one which few people are likely to understand or appreciate,but the payoff in terms of adequate numbers of well trained professional pilotsfor the nation's air transportation system in the years to come is certainlygreat enough to warrant the resumption of this critical form of training wininveterans' educational benefits. Since the job opportunities are increasingrapidly for pilots, and the intelligence and skill level of our all-volunteermilitary personnel is improving significantly, the reinstatement of flight'.raining can be an important boost to veterans entering the civilian work forceand relieving the national shortage of qualified pilots. I urge you toreinstate the flight training provisions of the Veterans' Educational AssistanceAct.

I appreciate this opportunity to present the views of AOPA before thisSubcommittee.

207

204

PILOT DEMAND

U.S. Large Turbojet Operators

YEAR GROWTH RETIREMENT TOTALS

1987 1601 657 2258

1988 1520 955 2475

1989 1496 1086 2582

1990 1067 1377 2444

1991 980 1279 2259

1992 1277 1647 2924

1993 1332 1860 3192

1994 1214 2105 3319

1995 1242 2137 3379

1996 1133 2413 3546

1997 987 2425 3412

+ + +

Net Totals. 13849 17941 31790

FAPA, 4291-J Memorial Drive, Atlanta, CA 30032 * (404) 294-0226

205

DEPARTMENT CF THE NAVYNAVY RECRUITING COMMAND

4018 WILSON BOULEVARDARLINGTON. VIRGINIA 22203.1491 IN 14[1.1.11 RRRRR TO

1133.Ser 211/" 4 0 20 7 OCT 1987

POLICY-GRAM # 3-88

Subj: MONTGOMERY GI BILL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

Ref: (a) CNRC memo 1500 Ser 211/00398 of 11 Mar 87

Encl.: (1) Questions and Answers (Q & A)

1. Reference (a) promulgated a welcome aboard letter and a GIBill Q & A sheet that is gi,en to all applicants at DEP-in. Ithas.since become necessary to increase the level of GI Billinformation we provide to the applicants prior to DEP-in.

2. Effective 16 November 1987, enclosure (1) will be used tobrief all applicants on the GI Bill. This document will besigned by the applicant and witnessed by the recruiter and shouldbe accomplished while completing the enlistment kit (DD Porn1966/1). The Enlisted Processing Division Supervisor (EPDS) willensure enclosure (1) is retained in the residual file.

3. Applicants will continue to receive the Welcome Aboard Letterand Q & A sheet at DEP-in as required by reference (a).

Distribution:COMNAVCRUITAREAS

D.1 P.

Director,Plans and Policy Department

Copy to;COMHAVRESP3R (Code 92)CO NORUOIC SATCNRC Codes 00, 01, 00A, 003, 012, 10, 22, 30, 33, 332, 335, 342,

40, 50, 70

209

206

THE NEW GI BILL

Question: What is the GI Bill?

Answer: The GI Bill is an educational benefit programavailable to all non-prior service individuals enteringthe Armed Forces after 1 July 1985. You are automaticallyenrolled in the GI Bill which means that your pay will bereduced by $100 per month for your first 12 months onactive duty. Legislation has been introduced in Congressto reduce your pay by $60 per month for your first 20months on active duty.

Question: Do I have to do anything else to get my post servicebenefits?

Answer: You must satisfy three eligibility criteria toget your benefits: (1) receive an honorable discharge,(2) complete high school before you finish your firstenlistment, and (3) serve three years on active duty ifyour enlistment is three years or longer, or serve twoyears on active duty if your enlistment is less than threeyears.

Question: What are the benefits?

Answer: For your $1,200 investment under the GI Bill youwill receive $10,800 in benefits which are payable at $300per month for 36 months based on full-time training, orthe equivalent in part-time training.

Question: can I use the benefits in-service?

Answer: Yes, once you have completed 24 months of activeduty you can use your GI Bill benefits in-service. Also,if you should decide to delay using your benefits untilafter you leave the Navy, you will have 10 years fromdischarge in which to use your benefits.

Question: Where can I go to school?

Answer: You can use your GI Bill benefits for VA-approved residence programs at colleges, universities ortechnical schools, or for correspondence courses,apprenticeship or on-the-job training.

Question: Can my dependents use my benefits?

Answer: No, GI Bill benefits are for your use only.

210

Encl (1)

4

207

Question: Bow do I enroll in the GI Bill?

Answer: By law, you are automatically enrolled in the GIBill. All paperwork for the GI Bill will be completedwithin your first two weeks at recruit training. Duringthose first two weeks if you should decide you do not wantthe GI Bill you will be given one opportunity todisenroll.

Question: Can I change my mind and enroll at a later date?

Answer: No, if you choose to disenroll from the GI Bill,you cannot enroll at a later date. Your decision todisenroll is a one-time-only irrevocable decision. Youcannot change your mind later.

Question: Can I get out of the program?

Answer: If you should decide not to enroll in the GIBill, you will have one opportunity at recruit training toget out. However, once you are enrolled in the GI Bill,you cannot stop or suspend these pay reductions.

Signature of Recruiter Signature of Enlistee

2

211

Date

IPLY TOAtm Of

UPSHOT

208

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEHEADQUARTERS UNITED CTATES Al R FOPCE RECRUITING SERVICE MC/

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE 'Aft TX 7S150.5421

CC

Letter About New G.I. Bill to Parents /Guardians

To ALL USAFRG b SQ/CC/RSA

1. I want all recruiters to emphasize the New G.I. Bill. They're to use the

letters to parents/guardians originally sent to the field in October 1985.

Keep using them until I instruct otherwise.

17 MAR 1981

2. You'll find copies of the letters attached. Reproduce them locally. I

want squadron RSAs to provide recruiters an initial supply and instructions

for reorders. The recruiters are to date 'tamp and personalize each letter,mail it to parents/guardians about two weeks prior to applicants going EAD, and

write the mailing date in the remarks section of the PIR.

3. Applicants and their parents/guardians must know the'New G.I. Bill's value.

Ensure use of these letters is covered during all training and inspection

teams' visits. This program will be a special emphasis item for 10

inspections. This needs your personal attention.

WILLIAM J. PORTER 2 Atch

Brigadier General, USAF 1. Ltr (Male)

Commander 2. Ltr (Female)

1st Ind, 3535 USAFRSQ/RSA 24 Mar 87

TO: 3535th USAFRSQ/NPS Recruiters

1. General Porter has placed increased emphasis on providing parents anaguardians of DEPs information on the New G.I. Bill. Attached for your

use are copies of letters on the New G.I. Bill to be sent to the parentsand guardians. Comply with para 2 above in accomplishing this requirement.

2. The use of these letters will be an item covered at all trainingmeetings and during inspectiion visits. When you require additional copies

of these letters contact your flight supervisor.

3. If you have any questions please give us a call, 981-3288.

AUDREY . BARI R, Captain, USAF 2 Atch nc

Chief, Advertising & Publicity UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

401SEPTEMBER 18,1947

212

209

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE RECRUMNO SERVICE (ATC1

RANDOLPH AIR MRCS BASE TX 76150.5421

Your daughter made an important decision by Joining the United States AirForte. That decision brings many opportunities into reach. One of those isadvanced education.

Mtdy young people join the Air Force to continue their education and training.I'm concerned that some of these same people choose not to financially backtheir education plan with the New G.I. Bill.

Let me explain how the New G.I. Bill works. Enrollment is automatic uponenlistment. Then, the Air Force deducts $100 from the airman's pay each monthfor 12 months. This one-time contribution results in a nine-to-one payback!As much as $10,800 is available for education after 24 months active dutyservice.

Your daughter has only one chance to stay enrolled. Once she decides todisenroll, she can't sign up again.

I encourage you to talk this over with her. Be sure she knows about the NewG.I. Bill. Is the short-term monetary benefit worth losing more than $10,000in educational benefits? Your advice may be the difference between a stereosystem and a college degre3!

Your daughter is following in the footsteps of millions of young Amer'cans whostarted their careers in the Air Force. You can be proud of her decision tojoin the Air Force, and to Aim High!

Sincerely

LOW-."-91WILLIAM J. PORTERBrigadier General, USAFCoorander

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

SEPTEMBER 18,1947

213

210

DEPARTMENT OF Ti4C AIR FORCEHEADQUARTERS UMW, STATES AIR ccc RECRUITING SERVICE CATC1

RANCOLPH PORCE SASE TX 781504421

Your son made an important decision by Joining the United States Air Force.That decision brings many opportunities into reach. One of those is advancededucation.

Many young people Join the Air Force to continue their education and training.I'm concerned that some of these same people choose not to financially backtheir education plan with the New G.I. Bill.

Let me explain how the New G.I. Bill works. Enrollment is automatic uponenlistment. Then, the Air Force deducts $100 from the airman's pay each monthfor 12 months. This one-time contribution results in a nine-to-one payback!As much as $10,800 is available for education after 24 months active dutyservice.

Your son has only one chance to stay enrolled. Once he decides to disenn311,he can't sign up again.

I encourage you to talk this over with him. Be sure he knows about the NewG.1. Bill. Is the short-term monetary benefit worth losing more than $10,000in educational benefits? Your advice may be the difference between a stereosystem and a college degree!

Your son is following in the footsteps of millions of young Americans whostarted their careers in the Air Force. You an be proud of his decision tojoin the Air Force, and to Alm High!

Sincerely

WILLIAM J. PORTER

Brigadier General, U3AFCommander

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

SEPTEMBER 18,1947

A

211

VS 85-01

NNW GI RILL EDUCATIONAL MINEFIT8 FOR AIR PONCE MINIM

ofterlams AND ANNUS

Usinnins 1 July 1985. a new edUcational,beeenta propel, commonly called theNew CI be offered. to eligible individuals who become seekers of'theAir Force on or after that date. The President signed this new program intolaw on October 19, 1984. These questions and answers arelroared to coverItems moat commonly asked by Air Porte applicants and their fannies.

Qi. What is the New GI Sill? ,

Al. The New GI 3111 is an educational assistance program that provides abasic entitlement of 810.$03 in educational benefits to participatingAir Force members. . ..1

Q2. Who is eligible to enroll?A2. All Air Force umbers who enter active duty for the first time on ok

after July 1. 1985 (except for Air Force Academy and /13111MCseholarshipgraduates). .

.

Q3. What ire the benefit's I'll rotates?A5. You will receive a basic entitlement of $10,800 in educitional Unfits

(up to $300 per month for 36 months). This is a nine to* payback onyour contribution to the program.

0. Norio I enroll in the prove'?.

A4. As an eligible Air Yoree'member.- you are automatically enrolled unlessyou specifically elcct not to participate in the program. If you chooseto remain enrolled in the program, you will have 1100 deducted from eachmonth's pay for the first 12 full...loathe of service: This deductionfrom pay is nonrefundable.

QS. When do I have to decide to remain enrolled in or disenroll from theprogram?

AS. You will have the opportunity to sake this decision Shortly after youenter on active duty. You will receive a briefing on the programbefore you have to make your decision. If yoit are in basic militarytraining (SHI) or Officer Training School (0T8). this will be donewithin two weeks of your entry on active duty.

May I enroll at a later date?Not If you elect to disanroll from the prosram, you cannot enrollat a later date.

Q6.A6.

Q7. If I enroll but don't use my educational Unfits, can my money berefunded?

A7. Not Your contribution is nonrefundable.

212

QS. Whom may I use my'benefits?Al. You may use your beeefits while still in the Air Pores after completing

two years of active mluty. You must use your benefits within 10 years ofyour data of release from active duty.

QP. Nay nor-Ides school graduates participate?A. Yes! Non -high school graduates and graduate equivalescy diploma (CID) .

holders may enroll in the program but must achieve a high.schooldiploma or a state equivalesey certificate during their first ternof ealistmant in order to use the benefits.

Q10. Does mmollment in the New CI Dill affect my eligibility for otherAir force educational opportunities?

A10.1101 The Air Force hoe always been committed to educational oppatualtiesfor its members and wants you to participate in the may programs weoffer. You may still enroll in the Community College of the Air Torte(CCU). use our tuition assistance program. and pursue other educational.opportunities. such as the Air Po-ce Institute of Technology (ALIT)and the Airmen Iducatios and Commissionine Proems (AICP).., . .

Q11. Mere can I go for additional counseling after'I enter the Air Pores?All. All Air Pori. bases have a base education services office with a

trained Staff of profassimmi education counselors to assist you inmeting your educatiosal goals.

Ms will be a "one-time" decision on your part. If you elect to lisenroll.yet will not be given another opportunity to enroll. The Air Torre encouragesyes to take stunts** of the educational be .fits available through the NewCI gill.

216

213

WRITTEN COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND THEIR RESPONSE

CHAIRMAN DOWDY TO U.S. ARMY

14 October - Questions to LTC Bemis from Chairman Dowdy

1. Question: What comments do you hear from GI Bill participantsregarding the program?

Answers The Army has heard nothing but good comments from MGIBparticipants. "n the Army, the number one motivator for bright youngmen and women vto enlist is the opportunity to obtain educationalbenefits. We capitalized on this powerful selling motive and withthe MGIB and the Army College Fund as a result we have continued tomeet our quality accession requirements. Comments from the fieldindicate wholehearted support from the new enlistee up to theGeneral Officer Commanders. Each year the Army conducts a newrecruit survey to obtain data on motivations and attitudes of thenew enlistees. Questions are asked about the importance of money forcollege, whether the Army provides an opportunity to obtain moneyfor college and have they heard about the new GI Bill. The responsessupport the Army's philosophy that the primary motivator of youngmen and women is education. Comments have been heard concerning the$100 pay reduction being too high, however, this has not dampenedthe Army's participation rate in the MGIB.

2. Question: There are those who feel a refund of the basic payreduction should be widely available to Montgomery GI Billparticipants. I feel a cash payment should be made only in the eventof the death of a participant and that pro-rated benefits should begiven under most other circumstances. What are your views on thisissue?

a

Answer: I agree totally with your views. Experience with VEAP hasshown that a refund availability has made it too easy for youngsoldiers, who, due to some minor financial difficulty, have beenrefunded their money and lost their educational benefits forever.Those few caws whereby individuals do not attain eligibilitythrough no fault of their own should be given prorated benefitsbased on the number of months served. I testified earlier regardingthose types of cases that are worthy of consideration. I have beentold by parents that they were willing to reimburse their on ordaughter the $1200 to ensure he or she did not throw away thisvaluable benefit. I believe also that everyone should be enrolled inthe program. That is to say, no one can disenroll. The value of thisprogram to the future betterment of our young people cannot beunderstated. Our youth are constantly striving to better themselvesand the MGIB is a natural to be a large part of their future.

3. Question: Por those individuals participating it the Montv,meryGI Bill who experience short-term financial emergencies and feel thestrain of the basic pay reduction, what assistance is available tohelp them?

Answer: In the Army, there are several agencies to provide relief tosoldiers in an emergency. The Red Cross has both loans and grantsavailable. The Army Emergency Relief also has loans and grantsavailable. Soldiers can receive assistance through the ArmyCommunity Services which prr/ide donations of food, clothing, andfurnishings. On-post reEgious groups also provide assistance. Last,but not least, the soldier's chain of command is ready to assist inmany ways including providing administrative leave, debt managementcounseling and advanced pay.

217

214

CHAIRMAN DOWDY TO U.S. AIR FOR(.2

Montgomery GI Bill

Chairman Dowdy: What comments do you hear from GI Billparticipants regarding the program?

Mr Gill: We have kept our finger on the pulse of newrecruits since the inception of the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).This has been accomplished by surveys as well as periodicvisits to the Berle Military Training Center at Lackland AirForce Base, San Antonio, Texas. Our feedback, which pow num-bers in the thousands, clearly indicated two primary concerns.The first centers on the level of payroll reduction requiredof young people to participate in the program. Of those whoopt not to participate, the $100 per month for 12 months isthe overwhelming reason for their decision. It should also benoted that many who choose to participate have indicatedtheir concern with the amount they must contribute upon ini-tial entry on active duty. It is clear that a reduction ofthe contribution level to $60 for 20 months would alleviatethe harshness perceived by those who participate and mostcertainly would increase MGIB participation overall.

OY

Chairmen Dowdy: There are those who feel a refund ofthe basic pay reduction should be widely available toMontgomery GI Bill participants. I feel a cash payment shouldbe made only in the event of the death of a participant andthat pro-rated benefits should be given under most other cir-cumstances. What are your views on this issue?

Mr Gill: We agree that cash refunds should only be madein the case of the death of a participant or their disablementto the point where the program cannot be used. We support aone month of benefits for each month served up to 36 monthsfor other circumstances. In such situations, the membershould be separated honorably and have a high school diplomaor its equivalent.

Chairman Dowdy: For those individuals participattag in

the Montgomery GI Bill who experience short-term fiesucialemergencies and feel the strain of the basic pay reduction,what assistance is available to help them?

Mr Gill: Air Force members who find themselves facingfinancial hardships, whether related to the MGIE or for other

reasons, are eligible for low.interest loans from the Air

Force Aid Society. They may also seek temporary financialrelief from Federal credit unions or other local lending

agencies.

218

215

CHAIRMAN DOWDY TO U.S. COAST GUARD

RESPONSES OF THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARDTO THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OF THE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRSSUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND EMPLOYMENT

FOR ITS HEARING OF OCTOBER 14, 1987

1. What comments do you hear from G.I. Bill participantsregarding the program?

Participants are enthusiastic about the program and the generoussubsidy it provides for them to continue their education.Legislation such as Public Law 99-576, which added correspondencecourses, apprenticeships and other on-the-job training programsto the educational pursuits that are fundable under theMontgomery G.I. Bill has made an excellent program even better.Education benefits are unquestionably one of the most importantincentives that encourage young men and women to enter the armedservices today.

One of the comments most often made about the bill is that itsrequired contributions are too high and should be changed to alesser amount over a longer period of time. The Coast Guard isnow inducting a considerable number of married recruits.Individuals in tLat category are finding that, even though theywould like to participate in the Montgomery G.I. Bill, therequired $100 monthly reduction in pay for each of the firsttwelve months on active duty is too great a decrease from analready small paycheck. Therefore, they regretfully disenrollfrom the program. One of the provisions of H.R. 3208 would allowparticipants to make the required $1200 contribution at a rate of$60 a month for 20 months. If enacted, the extended contributionschedule would make participation in the Montgomery G.I. Billmore affordable, not only for the married recruits but for alleligibles at the lower end of the pay scale. The Coast Guardstrongly endorses the extended contribution schedule.

2. There are those who feel a refund of the basic pay reductionshould be widely available to Montgomery G.I. Bill participants.I feel a cash payment should be made only in the event of thedeath of a participant and that pro-rated benefits should begiven under most other circumstances. What are your views onthis issue?

The Coast Guard supports H.R. 3001, which would provide a deathbenefit, or refund, of a Montgomery G.I. Bill participant'scontributions if he dies on active duty. The Coast Guard alsosupports the provision of H.R. 3208 which would allow"compensation in lieu of benefits" to Montgomery G.I. Billparticipants who have become so physically or mentally disabledthat they are unable to use such assistance.

4 3. For those individuals participating in the Montgomery C.I.Bill who experience short-term financial emergencies and feel thestrain of the basic reduction, what assistance is available tothem?

The Coast Guard Mutual Assistance program can Provide interest-free loans to individuals experiencing short-term financialemergencies. As stated previously, the strain of the basicreduction in pay for Montgomery G.I. Bill participants would belessened if the required $1200 reduction could be made over anextended period of time.

219

216

STATEMENT OF

R. J. VOGEL

CHIEF BENEFITS DIRECTOR

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING

AND EMPLOYMENT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 15, 1987

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide information about our

implementation of the Montgomery GI Rill and to provide our

position on pending bills H.R. 2950, 3180 and 3208, all of

which would amend the Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty--(chap-

ter 30.)

In the active duty program, as of September 24, 1987, 250 indi-

viduals had begun to use Montgomery GI Rill benefits. Through

August of this year, out of just over 608,000 eligibles, close

to 371,000 signed uo to participate, for a DOD-wide participa-

tion rate of 61 percent. For August, the DOD-wide participa-

tion rate was at 68 percent.

The Army has the highest participation rate; out of 239,162

eligibles, they have 188,093 participants for a 78.6 percent

particioation rate. The Marine Corps has a cumulative parti-

cipation rate of 65.4 percent. The other Armed Services are

Navy--47.5 Percent and Air Force--43.9 percent.

Statistics for just August show a marked increase. For exam-

ple, the Army had an 91.8 percent rate for the month. The

220

a

#

a

217

Marines also achieved significant participation--with a rate of

73.9 percent. Air Force and Navy improved their overall rate,

Air Force at 61.2 percent and Navy at 56.3 percent.

We anticipate 19,400 personnel will begin using Montgomery GI

Bill benefits in FY 1988 and 41,500 in FY 1989. From there,

we expect 104,700 in FY 1990; 165,300 in FY 1991; and 209,100

in Fl! 1992. Fiscal Year 1993 is expected to be the peak year

for chapter 30, with a projected 242,000 trainees.

Participation in the chapter 106 program is booming. Through

September 1987, there were 65,908 reservists using Montgomery

GI sill benefits under chapter 106. The Army National Guard

had the largest number--27,036. The next highest participa-

tion rate was the Army Reserve with 15,013 trainees. Other

participation figures are Air National Guard--9,664; Navy

Reserve--6,194; Air Force Reserve--4,486; Marine Corps Reserve--

3,013; and Coast Guard Reserve--502.

Our projections for the chapter 106 program are 147,400 for

FY 1988 and 202,800 for FY 1989, leading up to the peak par-

ticipation year of FY 1990, with 226,400 projected trainees.

After that, we anticipate participation to taper of somewhat

to 214,600.

Processing chapter 30 claims is currently centralized in the

VA Regional Office in St. Louis which reviews the claims,

determines eligibility, authorizes awards for payments, and

certifies payment due. They are using an interim system based

on an application of a personal-computer program until a ben-

efit payment system is available on Target. This interim

system enhances the accuracy and speed of award processing by

computing monthly rates, calculating entitlement, and

determining actual payment due.

-2-

221

218

Development of a benefit payment system on the Target System for

chapter 30 started about 18 months ago. Installation has taken

longer than originally anticipated because of the complexity of

the chapter 30 law. In conjunction with centralization of these

claims, a test of an optical disk system is scheduled to begin

in about 2 months. This will help determine the feasibility of

maintaining individual veteran Claims folders on an automated

filing system rather than maintaining paper Claims folders.

Chapter 106 claims are handled by all VA regional offices. An

interim system on Target is used for authorizing benefit pay-

ments. There is a data exchange with DOD, scheduled to run on

a weekly basis, on individuals who are receiving chapter 106

benefits. It identifies from DOD records individuals who are

no longer eligible for chapter 106 benefits and those who again

become eligible.

In order to better estimate the costs and number of trainees

in this program, we have contracted with Maximus, Inc. to devel-

op a computer-based model to predict the number of Montgomery

GI Bill trainees and the associated benefit costs for Fiscal

Years 1988 through 1992. The model was delivered to the VA

on Seotember 29 and testing has already begun.

Mr. Chairman, you asked that we comment on three pending bills:

H.R. 2950, H.R. 3180 and H.R. 3208. H.R. 2950 would amend the

Montgomery GI Sill to permit flight training. An individual

pursuing a program exclusively of vocational flight training

would be paid an educational assistance allowance at the rate

of 75 percent of the established charges for tuition and fees

that similarly circumstanced nonveterans pay. The entitlement

charge would be 1 month for each payment that is equal to

that individual's basic monthly allowance under chapter 30.

Reservists training under the Montgomery GI Bill-Select Reserve

-3-

222

I

e

...

219

would be charged 1 month of entitlement for each $140 paid to

them.

The history of flight training under the noncontributory GI Bill

(chapter 34) shows clearly it has not led to jobs for the major-

ity of trainees. In fact, the courses tended to serve avoca-

tionalt recreational and personal enrichment goals, rather thanr

basic employment objectives. The provisions of this bill are

very similar to the provisions that':governed flight training

under the noncontributory GI Bill. We do not find anything in

ft this bill that would indicate that these same abuses would not

be repeated under the Montgomery GI Bill.

For these reasons, we are opposed to the introduction of a pro-

gram of vocational flight training as part of the Montgomery GI

Bill.

H.R. 3180 would amend chapter 30 in a number of different ways.

Under the terms of this bill, participants could decide whether

they want a military pay reduction of $100 monthly for 12 months

or $50 monthly for 24 months. It would also permit serviceper-

sons to transfer entitlement to one or more dependents when cer-

tain conditions are met. In addition, this bill would allow a

recruit to elect not to participate in the chapter 30 education

program at the end of basic training.

We support DOD's position on this issue which is that since

f recruitment goals are being met, there is no need to lower the

serviceperson's pay reduction.

4Since the transferability feature is one that would aid in the

retention of servicemembers in the Armed Forces and has no

bearing on readjustment to a civilian life, we defer to the

Department of Defense on this issue.

79-871 0 - 88 - 8

-4-

223

220

We do favor lengthening the time for recruits' election not to

participate in the program. At present, there is no uniformity

among the services as to when a recruit has to make his or her

election. Basic training periods vary from service to service.

We believe that a uniform election period is in order. Current

provisions of law do not specify how much time the recruit has

after entry on active duty to make a decision. We agree with

DOD that 30 days is appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, the last bill you asked us to comment on is

H.R. 3208, which a:so amends chapter 30 to give an individual

60 days after entry on active duty to elect not to partici-

pate. The bill would also allow the individual a second oppor-

tunity to enroll in the program within 60 days after enactment

of H.R. 3208. Further, it would provide for the transfer of

chapter 30 education benefits to dependents. Persons entitiQd

to benefits who are unable to train due to physical or mental

disability may receive reimbursement of the amount of military

pay reduction resulting from program participation. Another

feature of H.R. 3208 specifies that, upon the death of a

participant, the amount by which his or her military pay was

reduced will be paid to living person(s) in a stipulated order.

This payment would bar the recipient from receiving any further

transferred chapter 30 education benefits.

As we indicated before, we support DOD's position on the pay

reduction issue.

With regard to the timeframe for not electing to participate, we

prefer a uniform period of 30 days from initial entry on active

duty.

Regarding the transferability feature of the bill, here again

we would defer to the Department of Defense since this is

essentially a retention rather than a readjustment feature.

-5-

224

221

We had previously taken a position favoring the payment of a

death benefit to certain living persons in the event of a par-

ticipant's death when the participant was on active duty at the

time of death and had not been paid any educational assistance.

However, we feel that the compensation in lieu of education ben-

efit provision of this bill is too loosely worded. We would

support the provision with DOD's recommended modifications.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased

to respond to any questions you or the members of the Subcom-

mittee may have.

-6-

225

222

TESTIMONY OF

LIEUTENANT GENERAL ANTHONY LUKEMAN, USMC

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

(MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL POLICY)

BEFUIE THE

.SUBCOMMITTEE POYENT

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

H.R. 2950, H.R. 3180 AND H.R. 3208

(MONTGOMERY GI BILL AMENDMENTS)

15 OCTOBER 1987

ROOM 334, CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

226

223

GOOD MORNING, Mi. CHAIRMAN.

IT IS A PRIVILEGE TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE WHICH HAS

DONE SO MUCH OVER THE YEARS FOR AMERICAN SERVICE MEMBERS. THE

MEN AND WOMEN OF THE ARMED FORCES ARE THE BACKBONE OF OUR

NATION'S OEFENSE STRUCTURE AND I KNOW THEY ARE GRATEFUL TO THIS

COMMITTEE FOR ENSURING THEIR FAIR TREATMENT.

THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL IS BEING PERCEIVED AS AN EXCELLENT

PROGRAM BY SERVICE MEMBERS. THE MONTHLY ENROLLMENT RATES ARE

STEADILY INCREASING. THIS PROGRAM WILL PROVE TO BE OF GREAT

VALUE TO THE NATION, THE SERVICES AND THE INDIVIDUALS WHO

PARTICIPATE.

YOU HAVE REQUESTED THAT I COMMENT TODAY ON THE DEPARTMENT'S

POSITION WITH RESPECT TO CHANGES TO THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL AS

PROPOSED IN H.R. 2950, H.R. 3180, ANO H.R. 3208, AS WELL AS ANY

AMENDMENTS THAT THE DEPARTMENT BELIEVES WOULD IMPROVE THE EFFEC-

TIVENESS OF THE PROGRAM.

WITH RESPECT TO H.R. 2950, THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT CONCUR

WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF FLIGHT TRAINING COURSES UNDER THE

MONTGOMERY GI BILL. A 1979 GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE SURVEY CON:

DUCTEO AN IN -DEPTH REVIEW OF FLIGHT TRAINING COURSES THAT WERE

PERMITTED UNDER THE FORMER GI BILL. THAT SURVEY CONCLUDED THAT

FLIGHT TRAINING COURSES 010 NOT ACCOMPLISH THE BASIC EMPLOYMENT

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAM, BUT RATHER TENDED ONLY TO SERVE

AVOCATIONAL, RECREATIONAL AND/OR PERSONAL ENRICHMENT GOALS. THIS

IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES OF THE MONTGOMERY

GI BILL.

H.R. 3180 WOULO CHANGE THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT THAT A

SERVICE MEMBER MAKE THE OECISION WHETHER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE

PROGRAM AT THE TIME OF INITIAL ENTRY ON ACTIVE DUTY TO THE NEW

REQUIREMENT THAT THE DECISION BE MAOE AT THE CLOSE OF THE

INDIVIDUAL'S BASIC TRAINING PERIOO. H.R. 3208 WOULD CHANGE THE

REQUIREMENT TO A PERIOD OF WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER ENLISTMENT.

227

224

IN ORDER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE

PROCESSING TIME; PROVIDE CENTRALIZED, HIGH QUALITY MONTGOMERY GI

BILL BRIEFINGS ANO COUNSELING SESSIONS; ANO STILL ALLOW RECRUITS

TO MAKE THEIR DECISIONS DURING A PERIOD OF LESS STRESS THAN THE

FIRST WEEK OF BASIC TRAINING; OOD SUPPORTS REQUIRING THE DECISION

ON MONTGOMERY GI BILL PARTICIPATION TO BE MADE WITHIN 30 GAYS OF

`ENTRY ON ACTIVE DUTY. A 30 -DAY PERIOD WOULD ALLOW AMPLE TIME FOR

A SERVICE MEMBER TO MAKE A DECISION ANO WOULD PRECLUDE THE

REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING TIME AT THE

CLOSE OF BASIC TRAINING. ADOITIOMILLY, BECAUSE THE LENGTH OF

BASIC TRAINING IS LESS THAN 60 DAYS FOR THREE OF THE SERVICES, A

30 -DAY TIME LIMIT IS NECESSARY, AS OPPOSED TO THE 60:0AY PERIOD

PROPOSED IN H.R. 3208.

H.R. 3180 WOULD CHANGE THE CURRENT PAY REDUCTION SCHEDULE

FOR MONTGOMERY GI BILL PARTICIPANTS FROM $100 PER MONTH FOR 12

MONTHS TO A SERVICE MEMBER'S OPTION OF EITHER $100 PER MONTH FOR

12 MONTHS OR $50 PER MONTH FOR 24 MONTHS. H.R. 3208 WOULD MAKE

THIS OPTION $100 PER MONTH FOR 12 MONTHS OR $60 PER MONTH FOR 20

MONTHS. 000 SUPPORTS A SINGLE PAY REDUCTION AMOUNT FOR ALL

PERSONNEL RATHER THAN AN OPTION SYSTEM. AN INCREASED

ADMINISTRATIVE WORK LOAD WILL BE NECESSARY TO PROCESS ANO

MAINTAIN TWO PAYMENT RECORD ACCOUNTS. THE $50 PER MONTH FOR 24

MONTHS SCHEDULE IS NOT SUPPORTED BECAUSE IT WOULD MDT ALLOW

2 -YEAR ENLISTEES SUFFICIENT SERVICE TINE TO COMPLETE THE REQUIRED

PAY REDUCTION OF $1200. WE SUPPORT THE CURRENT PAY REDUCTION

SCHEDULE OF $100 PER MONTH FOR 12 MONTHS BECAUSE IT IS MEETING

OUR ENLISTMENT INCENTIVE OBJECTIVES FOR THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL

PROGRAM. LOWERING THE MONTHLY PAY REDUCTION SCHEDULE TO $60

WOULD INCUR A COST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF AN ESTIMATED $88 MILLION

IN LOST REVENUE.

2

00Q228

225

H.R. 3180 AND H.R. 3208 WOULD BOTH PERMIT THE TRANSFER OF

MONTGOMERY GI BILL EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS FROM THE SERVICE MEMBER

TO HIS OR HER DEPENDENTS UNDER SPECIFIED CONDITIONS, SUCH AS THE

MEMBER'S CONTINUING lu SERVE ON ACTIVE DUTY OR THE MEMBER'S

DEATH, DISCHARGE FOR HARDSHIP OR SERVICE - CONNECTED DISABILITY,

OR COMPLETION OF 20 YEARS OF ACTIVE DUTY. ThE ESTIMATED COST TO

000 IS $20 MILLION PER YEAR FOR TRANSFERABILITY OF THE KICKER

BENEFITS WHICH ARE BUDGETED ON AN ACCRUAL BASIS. BECAUSE OF THE

HIGH COST TO DOD AND THE LIMITED IMPACT OF TRANSFERABILITY ON

RETENTION OOD DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS PORTION OF THE BILLS.

H.R. 3208 SEPARATELY PROPOSES THREE ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO

THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL. FIRST, SERVICE MEMBERS ON ACTIVE DUTY

WHO EARLIER CHOSE NOT TO ENROLL IN THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL PROGRAM

WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENROLL DURING A 60 -DAY PERIOD

BEGINNING ON THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS BILL. WE DO NOT

SUPPORT PROVIDING SERVICE MEMBERS WITH A SECOND OPPORTUNITY TO

ENROLL IN THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL PROGRAM. THIS PROPOSAL WOULD

INCREASE THE COST OF THE PROGRAM TO THE GOVERNMENT, WOULD NOT

PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL REZ;MTING BENEFITS TO THE SERVICES, AND

WOULD ACT IN OPPOSITION TO RETENTION EFFORTS.

H.R. 3208 WOULD ALSO PROVIDE A PAYMENT TO MONTGOMERY GI BILL

PARTICIPANTS IN THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THEIR PAY WAS REDUCED IF THE

ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS GETERMINES THAT THE INDIVIDUAL

HAS BECOME SO PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY DISABLED THAT HE IS UNABLE

TO UTILIZE HIS MONTGOMERY GI BILL BENEFITS. ADDITIONALLY, THE

BILL WOULD PROVIDE A DEATH BENEFIT PAYMENT TO THE BENEFICIARIES

OR SURVIVORS OF MONTGOMERY GI BILL PARTICIPANTS IN THE AMOUNT BY

PICH THE PARTICIPANTS' PAY WAS REDUCED. DOD HAS NO OBJECTION

3

229

226

TO THESE TWO PROVISIONS PROVIOEO THAT (1) THE OISABILITY OR

OEATH WAS NOT A RESULT OF MISCON04.1, ANO (2) THE PAYMENT MAOE

SHALL BE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE UNUSEO PORTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS'

PAY REOUCTION UNOER THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL PROGRAM. THIS BENEFIT

PAYMENT POLICY WILL PROVIOE FAIR ANO EQUITABLE TREATMENT FOR ALL

PARTICIPANTS.

THE OEPARTMENT WAS ALSO REQUESTED TO PRESENT ANY AMENOMENTS

WHICH IT BELIEVES WOULD IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE

MONTGOMERY GI BILL. WE RECOMMENO THAT ONE RELATIVELY MINOR

MOOIFICATION BE MAOE. 000 BELIEVES THE LAW SHOULO PROVIOE RELIEF

TO SPECIFIC GROUPS OF MONTGOMERY GI BILL PARTICIPANTS WHO

CURRENTLY WILL NOT BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS. THESE GROUPS

INCLUDE THOSE RECEIVING AN EARLY OISCHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING

REASONS: (1) TO ATTEND ROTC, (2) AUTHORIZEO SERVICE REOUCTION IN

STRENGTH, (3) MEOICAL OISCHARGE WITHOUT OISABILITY, ANO (4) SOLE

SURVIVING SON OR OAUGHTER. THESE SERVICE MEMBERS SHOULO BE

AWAROEO PRORATEO BENEFITS BASEO UPON THE NUMBER OF MONTHS SERVEO.

WE RECOMMENO THAT ONE MONTH OF BENEFITS BE PROVIOEO FOR EACH

MONTH OF ACTIVE OUTY SERVEO.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PREPAREO STATEMENT. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR

THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR. I WILL BE PLEASEO TO RESPONO TO YOUR

QUESTIONS.

230

227

STATEMENT OF

THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (RESERVE AFFAIRS)

MANPO,ER AND PERSONNEL (ACTING)

SLOAN R. GILL

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS

NOT FOR PUBLICATIONUNTIL RELEASED BY THESUBCOMMITTEE

15 OCTOBER 1987

231

228

Kr. Cnairaan and members of the committee:

I want to thank you for inviting is to appear and offer

testiaony on the implementation and effectiveness of the

Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve.

As you are aware, the Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected

Reserve is a non-contributory, general entitlement program.

Reserve officer and enlisted personnel becomu eligible for

education benefits after completing initial active duty for

training raid 180 days ot service in the Selected Reserve. They

are also required tc enlist or agree to serve in the Selected

Reserve for at least six years. Participants who remain members

of the Selected Reserve have up to ten years to use the full

entitlement. Benefits are payable for up to 36 months of

education at the rate of $140 per month for full-time study, $105

and $70 per month for three-quarter and half-time study,

respectively. Funded study must be at an institution of higher

learning and is basically limited to a baccalaureate degree.

The Montgomery GI Bill is a valuable recruiting and

retention tool for the Selected Reserve. Participation in the

program has shown steady growth since its inception in July 1985.

As of September 17, 1987, more than 64,000 new applications have

been processed by the Veterans Administration. The table below

reflects the participation rates by reserve component through

September 17, 1987.

MONTGOMERY GI BILL - RESERVENUMBER OF APPLICANTS BY RESERVE COMPONENT

Reserve Component FY 85* FY 86 FY 87** Total

DOD/DOT 1,653* 30,921 31,917 64,491

ARNG (727) 13,707 12,090 26,524USAR (331) 6,298 7,983 14,612USNR (132) 2,435 3,472 6,039USMCR (50) 852 2,017 2,919ANG (281) 5,251 3,996 9,528USAFR (116) 2,179 2,078 4,373CGR (16) 199 281 496

*Figures shown reflect the dates when members of theSelected Reserve applied to the Veterans Administration with aNotice of Basic Eligibility for benefits. The number of parsons

232

229

2

who received benefits for the school term which began in late FY1985 was 11,783 for all of DoD. All but 1,653 of these personsdid not make formal application at the VA until after September30, 1985. Individual reserve component figures were notdetermined for FY 1985. However, to prevent distortion of the FY1986 and FY 1987 figures by component, the 1,653 applications inFY 1985 have been allocated to each Reserve component accordingto its proportion of applications in FY 1986.

**As of September 17, 1987.

In terms of quality, we continue to see a high percentage of

Guard and Reserve recruits who possess at least a high school

diploma or equivalency certificate. For the twelve months ending

June 1987, 77 percent of enlisted accessions in the selected

Reserve were high school graduates or better.

There are some administrative wrinkles in the Montgomery GI

Bill-Reserve which are yet to be ironed out, however. Timely and

accurate automated data input of selected Reserve members,

eligibility by the Services to the Defense Manpower Data Center

(DMDC) has shown steady improvement; but it continuer to be a

problem in managing benefit payments. Through the use of off-

line procedures and careful coordination with the Veterans

Administration, DoD has been able to minimize individual

inequities while encouraging the Services to upgrade and expand

their in-house automation and staffing to a level sufficient to

support reliance upon the automated eligibility reporting system.

This system provides input from each Selected Reserve unit to the

appropriate reserve component data processing center, then to the

Defense Manpower Data Center, then to the Veterans Adminis-

tration. As of September 14, 1987, the system has been enhanced

by providing direct VA Regional Office on-screen access to the

DMDC data base. This will provide more timely eligibility

information than was previously available through the twice-

monthly batch transfer of termination/expedited corrections data

fron DMDC to VA.

You have asked me to comment specifically on a bill pending

before this committee, HR 2950, and to offer comments on ways to

improve the effectiveness of the Montgomery GI Bill-Reserve

(Chapter 106, title 10, United States Code).

233

230

3

HR 2950 would add flight training to both Chapter 30 of

title 38 (Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty) and Chapter 106 of

title 10. We do not favor this addition. Prior experience with

flight training in veterans' educational programs has shown it to

have limited vocational benefits. Further, DoD opposes allowing

flight training under Chapter 30. We do not believe it would be

appropriate to authorize it as a benefit under Chapter 106 if it

is not authorized under Chapter 30.

From a cost standpoint, adding flight training would

probably result in little or no increase in expenditures. This

conclusion is based upon an assumption that eligible Reserve

members would study something else if flight training were

unavailable.

We have an additional concern about the method of payment

for flight training. Reserve members' entitlement to GI Bill

benefits runs concurrently with their qualifying participation in

the Selected Reserve, unlike Chapter 30 benefits which are based

primarily upon a completed term of service. Chapter 106, in

fact, contains provisions for recovering benefit payments to

reservists who fail to participate satisfactorily. Currently,

the maximum monthly benefit (for full-time study) is $140.

Thirty-six months are required to receive the maximum

allowable benefit of $5,040. For students who do not attend

summer school, this translates into four calendar years. Payment

for flight training under HR 2950, however, would cover 75

percent of tuition and fees with one month's benefit charged for

each $140 received. Since commercial flight training is

relatively expensive, a student pursuing it on an active basis

could fairly quickly consume his or her entire GI Bill

entitlement. For example, 20 hours of flight instruction per

month at $60/hour would entitle the reservist to GI Bill benefits

of 7L% X $1,200 $900. At this rate, in less than six months a

reservist would entirely consume the maximum amount of GI Bill

,,234r. .

14.

231

4

benefits; and yet, the remaining Selected Reserve obligation for

those benefits could be as much as five years. This imbalance

between the length of Selected Reserve participation and the rate

at which benefits are paid could result in aggravating the

recoupment problem for unsatisfactory participation.

With respect to increasing the incentive value of the

Montgomery GI Bill as a reserve recruiting and retention tool,

the Sixth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation Committee

is reviewing the entire subject of compensation and benefits for

the reserve components. Specific suggestions by this office in

advance of the Sixth QRMC's findings and recommerlitations would

be premature. However, we do recommend one administrative change

regarding the time within which a Selected Reservist must obtain

a high school credential to be eligible for Montgomery GI Bill

benefits. Chapter 106 now requires award of a high school

diploma or equivalency certificate prior to the reservist's

completion of initial active duty for training. Otherwise,

eligibility for Montgomery GI Hill benefits is lost. This seems

unnecessarily harsh and does not encourage completion of high

school through equivalent study. The Montgomery GI Hill provides

a major incentive for joining and remaining in the Selected

Reserve. It is targeted primarily at high school graduates in an

effort to raise the quality of our fighting forces. But, some

individuals with great ability are slow to realize their

potential. Disruptive home lives or adverse economic

circumstances may seriously interfere with their ability and

desire to complete secondary school. When these conditions

change, or the individual matures sufficiently to cope better

with them, the potential to be an outstanding soldier, sailor or

airman remains. The Selected Reserve needs to retain these

individuals and they should be allowed a reasonable time to

complete their secondary school studies and qualify for

educational benefits. Such a program would also permit the

Services greater latitude in tailoring their recruiting programs

235

232

5

during the coming decade, when projected demographic shifts are

expected to reduce the number of high school graduates. A two-

year qualifying period would align the reserve period with the

minimum two-year active duty term required for Montgomery GI Bill

eligibility under Chapter 30.

Alternatively, it may be preferable from a retention

standpoint to require only that the high school credential be

obtained prior to any six-year reenlistment period. This would

make the Mont4omery GI Bill-Reserve a continuing incentive for

reserve retention among the class of enlisted personnel who are

desirable military assets but who, for one reason or another,

failed to obtain a high school credential at the start of their

reserve careers.

I would like to close by stating unequivocally that the

Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve (Chapter 106) is a

success story. It has, along with other incentives, been

instrumental in recruiting and retaining quality members for our

reserve components.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my testimony. I thank you once

again for the opportunity you have given me to appear before the

Committee. I am prepared to answer any questions you may have.

(: 236

233

Statement of

dAe j`,11 leaf? Yegiem1008 IC STREET, N. W.

WASHINGTON. O. C. 20006

by

G. MICHAEL SCHLEE, DIRECTORNATIONAL SECURITY-FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMISSIONS

THE AMERICAN LEGION

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENTHOUSE VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

on

PROPOSED REVISIONS IN THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL

October 15, 1987

237

234

STATEMENT OF G. MICHAEL. SCHLEE, DIRECTORNATIONAL. SECURITY-FOREIGN RELATIONS DIVISION

THE AMERICAN LEGIONBEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND EMPLOYMENT

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRSU.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 15, 1987

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to appearbefore this Subcommittee to present its views on proposed

legislation which seeks to amend portions of the enactedMontgomer GI Bill, established under Title VII of Public Law 98-525. The American Legion applauds the Committee for its work inthe development and passage of the Montgomery GI Bill which makespermanent educational assistance programs for the All-VolunteerForce under Chapter 30, Title 38, United States Code, and theprogram of educational assistance for members of the SelectedReserve, under Chapter 106, Title 10, United States Code. Underprevious law, the new GI Bill programs were to terminate for newparticipants on June 30, 1988.

The stated program purposes of the Montgomery GI Bill are toassist members of the Armed Forces to readjust to civilian lifeafter their separation from military service; to assist the All-Volunteer Force program and the Total Force Concept of t" ArmedForces by establishing a program of educational assistance basedon service on Active Duty or a combination of service en ActiveDuty and in the Selected Reserve (including the National Guard);to aid in the recruitment and retention of highly qualifiedpersonnel for both the Active and Reserve components of the ArmedForces; and to give special emphasis to providing educationalassistance benefits to aid in the retention of personnel in the

Armed Forces.

The educational assistance programs of the Montgomery GIBill are funded and administered by the Veterans Administrationfor the Active Duty components except for "kickers" and

supplemental programs which are funde0 by the Department of

Defense. The educational assistance prc4ramm for the Selected-Reserve are also funded by the Department 4f Defense.

It comes as no surprise that the new GI Bill and now, the

Montgomery Cl Bill, are continuing to serve as a strong, costeffective recruiting tool for our Armed Forces. Without a

permanent GI Bill, the services would be forced to compete withan expanding job market and educational institutions in order toattract a larger percentage of high quality youth from a

shrinking pool of eligible recruits. As the male cohort shrinks,studies indicate that by the end of this decade services willneed to recruit one out of every two available and eligible non-college males to maintain their current strength levels. The

incorporation of the Reserves and National Guard in the programis also reaping benefits for those essential components of theTotal Force. This, in our view, is praiseworthy and reflects atrue commitment to that policy.

The Montgomery GI Bill is a contributory system in which theservice member is investing in his or her own future. In

exchange for three years of honoruble service on active duiv or acombination of two years on active duty and a four year ReserveComponent, an individual is entitled to $300 a month for a

maximum of 36 months of full -time school attendance. In exchangefor a two-year tour of duty, an individual is entitled to $250 amonth for 36 months. These benefits are funded by the VeteransAdministration. As with the new GI Bill, Montgomery GI Bill

participants agree to a non-refundable, irrevocable, $100 per

month reduction in their basic pay for 12 months. Servicemembers can begin using their educational assistance benefits

238

235

- 2 -

after completion of two years of active duty service. DOD willfund supplemental programs for career-minded service members aswell as "kickers" for designated occupational specialties.

With regard to service members' contributory r,ductions,H.R. 3180 and H.R. 3208 propose an option to contribute a lesseramount over an extended period of lime than the prescribed $100per month for 12 months. The current $1G0 per month for 12

months deduction (which is acceptable to many servicemen andwomen, an the one hand) is a formidable amount to young Americansentering the military. The $50 per month deduction over 24months is an attractive option under H.R. 3180 as is the $60 permonth deduction for 20 months under H.R. 3208. On the surface,the latter option extending. contributions over a 20 month periodwould assure full contributions are made before individuals areauthorized to begin Jsing their educational benefits.

The provision to extend the period of consideration for

deciding to opt for the program, from within the first 14 days ofactive duty to 60 days under H.R. 3208 or by the close of basictraining (H.R. 3180), has considerable merit. The first severalweeks of basic training are the most intense and stressful for

trainees. Their endeavors focus on the stressful adjustment totheir new environment and the satisfactory completion of basictraining. This adjustment is more difficult for some thanothers. The decision to opt for the Montgomery GI Bill, or not,is irrevocable. By deferring this decision on the program, andthe options therein, to the end of basic training, recruits willhave more time and opportunity to discuss the program with theirfamilies, superiors and peers. By the end of the basic trainingperiod, trainees will know if they have satisfactorily completedbasic training and whether they will maintain continuedeligibility for the educational assistance program. Thisfeature--extending the period of consideration to the

satisfactory completion of basic training--could encourage aneven greater level of participntion in the program and enhanceits administration.

With regard to the transfer of educational assistanceentitlements to dependents, The American Legion, in previoustestimony, has voiced concern over the provision of nuthority forthe transferability of educational assistance benefits providedunder any peacetime GI Bill. Such a provision would affect aprimary purpose of the Public Lew by providing benefits to

individuals, specifically dependents of service personnel whocould otherwise qualify in their own right, for benefits in theyears ahead. A provision of this nature could reduce the alreadydwindling pool of eligible individuals available for militaryservice based on the incentive of educational benefits.Additionally, a serious look must be given to the long term costof transferability and the possibility of withdrawing fundingfrom other essential programs funded by the VeteransAdministration and Department of Defense. The question of equityto previous veterans is also a serious consideration.

The potential impact of this provision on the retention ofservice members needs to be analyzed. There is the possibilitythat too many servicemen could be encouraged to remain in themilitary solely to finance the college educations of theirchildren. The built-in provision for supplemental increases ineducational assistance benefits for careerists is a knownfactor. With regard to retention, it is clear that other factorssuch as pay comparability, career progression, dependentsatisfaction with the Service, and other sound force managementfactors also came into play.

H.R. 3208 would allow educational benefits to be transferredto dependents only in instances where the service member dies onactive duty before using any benefits. Under the provisions ofChapter 35 of Title 38, the Veterans Administration already has a

239

236

- 3 -

program to provide educational assistance for survivors ofservice members who die while on active duty or are 100 percentservice-connected disabled.

The American Legion wishes to address a related aspect whichdeals with the refundability, or death benefit, aspect of theMontgomery Cl Bill. Our National Convention in August approved aresolution to support an amendment to the VA EducationalAssistance Act (of 1984), the predecessor of the current CI Bill,which would restore the "Death of Participant" provision toprovide for the refunding of CI Bill contributions to thesurvivor(s) in the event of a service member's death.Recognizably, H.R. 3001 seeks to amend Chapter 30 of Title 38 bypaying a "deoth benefit in the amount of such reductions" tosurviving deqendents when a service member dies on active dutyand who has not been paid any educational assistance under thisChapter. This resolution provides the basis for The AmericanLegion's support for H.R. 3001 introduced by the Chairman.

H.R. 2950 exclusively addresses the provision of addingflight training for individuals entitled to basic educationalassistance. Under current law, the Veterans Administration willpay for college education, on-the-job training, andapprenticeships, but not for flight training as such. While thisprovision would undoubtedly serve as an attractive recruitingtool, the VA will currently fund flight training when recognizedas part of a collegiate degree-producing program. The high costsassociated with flight elusive training programs could negatethe availability of collegiate, on-the-job training orapprenticeship programs. Additionally, the military servicesoffer excellent flight training programs for interested andqualified service members.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony.

240

FoundedDecember 28.7940

237

NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION4226 King Street Alexandria, Virginia 22302 (703) 845-9000

October 27, 1987

Honorable Wayne Dowdy, ChairmanSubcommittee on Education, Training and EmploymentCommittee on Veterans' AffairsU.S. House of Representatives335 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Tor the Record: October 15, 1987 Rearing onthe Uontgosery CI Bill

Dear Mr. Dowdy:

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) rep-resents the business interests of over 1,000 Member companiesthat provide both aviation ground services :Zixed base opera-tors or FB0s) and on-demand air transportation (air taxis).Since many of our Member companies not only employ pilots forair taxi service but also provide flight training, NATA isextremely interested in H.R. 2950, legislation providingflight training educational assistance for qualified veter-ans.

We strongly believe that flight training assistanceshould be included in the options availablemto those seekingexpanded education after leaving the armed services. Flighttraining can provide important technical training that willensure the future employment of veterans directly as pilotsin ancillary employment, using pilot skills, as well as as-sist in meeting the growing market demand for qualified pi-lots.

As you are probably aware, there is currently a shortageof qualified pilots. While i.he total number of available pi-lots is decreasing, demand is growing. The Future AviationProfessionals of America (FAPA) projects that almost 32,000pilots will be hired over the next ten years by large turbo-jet operators alone. Deregulation of the airlines, resultingin increases in the number of flights and overall size ofcommercial carriers, along with the expansion of regionalairlines has compounded the problem. The retirement of manyolder pilots combined with the unprecedented expansion by thenation's airlines, would enable those veterans receivingflight training to pursue a career in a high-demandprofession.

Flight training can also enhance veterans' success inother fields. The ability to pilot an aircraft and usingthat skill in one's job can increase the efficiency and suc-cess of businesses, even though the individual is not em-ployed as a "pilot". For instance, salespeople, insuranceadjusters and area managers are just a few of the many occu-pation:- that require frequent travel, and that can enjoy in-creased efficiency from utilizing a charter aircraft flown bya pilot with a license obtained by veterans' training assis-tance.

241

The armed forces would also benefit from the establish-ment of flight training assistance. Offering flight trainingeducational assistance would be an additional recruiting tooland, perhaps even more importantly, it could help the armedservices retain more active-duty pilots. By meeting thecivilian demand for pilots with veterans utilizing flighttraining benefits, the incentive for active duty militarypersonnel to leave the armed forces for the civilian marketwould be greatly reduced.

NATA is concerned about the perceived abuses of previousVh flight training programs. In 1979, the General AccountingOffice (GAO) reported a small number of veterans in flighttraining programs had full-time jobs as a result of theirtraining. We feel the GAO used unrealistic criteria forjudging the value of flight training. Primarily, GAO assumeda veteran had to be employed as a pilot to utilize flighttraining. As was previously pointed out in our statement,many business opportunities are enhanced when an employee canuse an aircraft, even though th,2 individual is not actuallyemployed as a pilot.

The language of H.R. 2950 will require a veteran to makea substantial monetary investment before being eligible forassistance. Having to first obtain a private license (an ap-proximate $3,500 investment) before receiving flight trainingassistance, along with the required payment or 25 percent ofall subsequent training, ensures that veterans will use theirtraining for vocational purposes.

In summary, there is a current and growing demand forpilots which provides excellent employment opportunities forthose with proper training. The ability of qualified veter-ans to receive educational assistance for flight training isextremely important in meeting both the civilian and armedforces need for pilots. Within the framework established un-der H.R. 2950, veterans wouldhgie to make the initial in-vestments necessary to receive flight training aid, protect-ing the program from abuses. HATA, on behalf of our Membercompanies, strongly urges the establishment of veteran'straining assistance for flight education. The Association isready to work with you and Members of your Subcommittee toestablish such a program.

Sincerely,

7167=7

Willian H. PowerVice President,Go.ernment Affairs

242

239

WRITTEN COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND THEIR RESPONSE

CHAIRMAN DOWDY TO VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION

Question: If H. R. 3208 were enacted, would the transferabilityprovisions be implemented in the same manner as the 901 program?Are the provisions similar?

Answer: The language providing transferability in H. R. 3208and the provisions contained in the Section 901 program containdifferences. The eligibility provisions in the bill are differ-ent from those contained in the Section 901 education program.For example, H. R. 3208 permits payment of assistance to thetransferee wntle the individual transferring entitlement wouldremain on active duty. Tne Section 901 program does not permittransfer of benefits until the individual transferring benefitsreenlists after a aualifying enlistment. We note other differ-ences which would impair implementation under the Section 901program. H. R. 3208 would permit the individual transferringthe benefit to modify or revoke the transfer at any time.Section 901 only permits MI person to revoke his or her pre-vious transferability action. The definition of a child isdifferent between the two provisions. A child under Section901 is governed by tne definition in title 10, USC, which pro-vides tnat a determination of an adult child's eligibility woulddepend upon the amount of support furnished by the person trans-ferring entitlement. An illegitimate child is not eligible.However, under the provisions of H. R. 3208 the language is lessrestrictive. A cnild would be eligible if he or she is/would beeligible under the definition of "child" contained in chapter 35of title 38.

The Section 901 program was established as a test program. Itwas made available to less than 7,000 enlistees and reenlistees.The number of transfer cases nas been very small. This nas per-mitted the Veterans Administration to nandle these claims at onefield station. Tne proposed transferability feature for theMontgomery G. I. Bill would be made available to potentiallythousands of individuals. This would greatly increase theadministrative problems and the possibility of a high errorrate. For example, Section 901 provides that the veteran orserviceperson transferring entitlement may do so for one personat a time. Tne language contained in the bill would permit mul-tiple transfers to dependents. Since we have not nad experiencein this area it would add to the complexity of the program.

243

240

CHAIRMAN DOWDY TO OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OFDEFENSE

Question: I am pleased to see that your legi lativerecommendation supports relief for certainspecific groups of GI Bill participants inthe form of education benefits rather thana return of money. The issue of benefitsversus cash refunds was debated at the hear-ings. For the record, would you explain whyyou favor pro-rated educational assistancerather than a return of the basic pay re-duction?

Answer: One of the principal.rIvons for the estab-lishment of't4*.M(44,Tery GI Bill(MGIB) isto provide training and readjustment tocivilian life for those who have served inthe Armed Forces. Enrollees in the MGIBprogram have full intentions of pursuinghigher education and training upon comple-tion of their service. A $1200 Servicemember pay reduction,' combined with no re-fund provision, clearly demonstrates thisintention. Providing pro-rated educationalbenefits, normally in the amount of onemonth of benefits for each month of activeduty served, as opposed to providing a cash

.*P1MZ. 51f sfkg,P f,P,5 .(P.)? 9,1 e whosetype or drschirge'or "length of service doesnot qualify them for full MGIB educationalbenefits would meet the objectives of theMGIB program and the expections of theparticipants.

244

RESCRVE AFFAIRS

241

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

WASHINGTON, G.C. 20301

Honorable Wayne DowdyChairman, Subcommittee on Education,Training and Employment

Committee on Veterans, AffairsHouse of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

NOV 251987

'At) i^ 1997

I am pleased to resp,md to your questions regarding mypersonal views of certain amendments to the Montgomery GI Bill-Reserve (Chapter 106, title 10, United States Code). I muststress, however, that these are my personal views only and do notnecessarily reflect those of the Department of Defense. As Iindicated in my testimony before the Subcommittee on October 15,1987, the Department of Defense is awaiting the report of theSixth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation before adoptingspecific recommendations to enhance the reserve componentrecruiting and retention program.

1. Q: It was suggested during recent hearings that thecurrent requirement that reservists complete 180 days of servicebefore using their entitlement be eliminated. What do youpersonally think of this recommendation?

A: Elimination of the 180-day Selected Reservemembership requirement as a precondition to eligibility forChapter 106 benefits would improve the efficiency andeffectiveness of the Montgomery GI Bill. In the great majorityof nonprior service accessions, the 180-day requirement issatisfied during the member's initial active duty for training(IADT). Consequently, it is essentially redundant to therequirement to complete IADT before eligibility for educationalbenefits may begin. Yet, it requires separate data entries andmonitoringan unnecessary additional complication in anadministrative system which is already unusually complex. I alsonote that during the October 15 hearing, the military reservechiefs were unanimous in supporting elimination of the 180-dayrequirement.

2. Q: There seems to be near universal support foramending the Chapter 106 program in two ways - those being: 1)allowing Chapter 106 participants to pursue the same types ofcourses as those allowed under Chapter 30, and 2) allowingChapter 106 participants to go to school less than half-time. Inyour personal opinion, would these provisions strengthen theChapter 106 program?

245

242

2

A.(1): Same types of educational courses. Ipersonally support expanding the Chapter 106 program to permitthe same educational opportunities that are available under theChapter 30, title 34 program. Not only would this increase theincentive value of this important recruiting and retention tool,it would also better reflect the Tota4 Force policy whichunderlies our national military strategy. Access to vocational-technical training would afford opportunities for self-improvement to reservists who are not interested in the soreacademic pursuit of a college degree. Many of the new skillsthereby obtained, such as electronic, automotive, buildingtrades, and clerical, would be of direct benefit to the militarycapabilities of our reserve units.

Further, changes in the American and world economies produceeconomic disruptions that often require job retraining forindividuals displaced by technological advances or shifting labormarkets. It would benefit these persons and provide anotherimportant Selected Reserve incentive if the Montgomery GI Hillwere available to help fund such retraining. Not incidentally,this would also contribute to our national productivity.

On the upper end, extending Chapter 106 benefits topostgraduate studies would recognize tae growing need formilitary officers to obtain levels of expertise beyond thebaccalaureate level to function effectively in a world ofincreasing technical and political complexity. Ths advancedcivilian study programs of the active components, plus theavailability of financing under the military departments' tuitionassistance programs and Chapter 30 and its predecessors, havelong recognized the benefits of graduate level education amongmilitary personnel, particularly officers. If the Total Force isto retain its credibility as a realistic national defensestrategy, the reserve portion of that force must be no lesscapable than the active side. Further, the current baccalaureaterestriction of Chapter 106 severely limits its retention valuefor an increasingly-educated officer corps.

(2): Less than half-time study. Many dedicatedreservists have time only for limited study outside their workand home responsibilities. A Montgomery GI Bill entitlement forless than half-time study would help them to pursue theireducational goals. However, I believe its value as a recruitingincentive would be somewhat limited for two reasons. One, aprorated level of payment for less than half-time study would beonly about $35-50 per month, based upon the current benefitsschedule. Two, approximately SS% of Selected Reservistsreceiving Chapter 106 benefits are in a full-time or three-quarter time program, which reflects its appeal for young highschool graduates seeking to obtain a college education. Thus, Iwould not expect expansion of the program to less than half-timestudy to be a significant recruiting tool but I would expect itto enhance retention, encourage individual development andgrowth, and support DoD's efforts to improve the capability ofthe Total Force.

I appreciate this opportunity to offer my personal views onways to strengthen the Montgomery GI Bill-Reserve. If you havefurther questions or require additional information, I will bepleased to respond.

Sincerely,

Ad*Sloan R. Gill

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary(Guard/Reserve Manpower and Personnel)

246

243

CHAIRMAN DOWDY TO ARMY RESERVE

INSERT FOR THE RECORDX Noun

APPOMATIONS COMMITS( MOO MOMSCOMMITII IINIMIN OTOS

A IN A TM PA NO.

15 Oct 87

UN -.

Montgomery GI Bill

Response to the Subcommittee on Education, Training and Employment

Question. It was suggested duria.) cent hearings that the currentrequirement that reservists complete 80 days of service beforeusing their entitlement be eliminat, . What do you personally thinkof this recommemdation7Answer. We believe that the requxement that a reservist must

serve 180 days in order to be eligible to use this entitlementshould be eliminated. A reservist should be eligible for theMontgaeery GI Bill once he has completed his LADT (Basic and

Advanced Individual Training) and has been awarded an MOS that makeshim a mobilization asset. To require additional servicebeyond this is, in our opinion, unnecessary, burdensome, andcounterproductive.

247

244

CHAIRMAN DOWDY TO AIR FORCE RESERVE

INSERT FOR THE RECORD

APPROPRIATION COMMITTES ENATE

151 ARMED SERVICES COMMITTE ENOMESENATE

MAMA° DATE TRANS8 EWIR9 LINE NO.

15 Oct 87 N/A Question

IINSEAT NO.

OTHERCommittee on Veteran%Mit, Suo,ommtraecon Educ. and Training

Congressman Dowdy: It was suggested during recent hearings thatthe current requirement that reservists complete 180 days of servicebefore using their entitlement be eliminated. What do you personally

think of this recommendation?

General Scheer: We favor elimination of the 180-day SelectedReserve membership qualifying period. This would remove a restric-

tion that complicates administration of the program. In most cases.

the 180-day requirement is met by the time the nonprior serviceenlistee completes initial active duty for training. The requirement

causes confusion in some cases and necessitates separate monitoring.Its elimination would simplilf administration of the program.

248

245

CHAIRMAN DOWDY TO U.S. COAST GUARD

CONGRESSMAN DOWDY'S QUESTIONWITH COAST GUARD ANSWER3ONTGOMERY GI BILL HEARING, 15 OCTOBER 1987

QUESTION: IT WAS SUGGESTED DURING RECENT HEARINGS THAT THECURRENT REQUIREMENT THAT RESERVISTS COMPLETE 180 DAYS OF SERVICEBEFORE USING THEIR ENTITLEMENT BE ELIMINATED. WHAT DO YOUPERSONALLY THINK OF THIS RECOMMENDATION?

ANSWER: I endorse this recommendation. Many of ourreservists are inconvenienced by the 180 day restriction and moreof them would be willing to participate if it were eliminated.It is my opinion that the program can be managed just aseffectively with a much shorter initial service requirement. Isuggest that an initial period of 60 days satisfactory servicewould be appropriate. I should note that the Administrationopposes any changes to the Reserve Program until after the 6thQRMC has completed its Review of reserve compensation andbenefits.

249

246

CHAIRMAN DOWDY TO NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

QUESTION: General Temple, it was suggested during recent hearingsthat the current requirement that reservists complete 180 days ofservice before using their entitlement eliminated. What do youpersonally think of this recommendation:

LTG Temple: I support elimination of the 180 day requirement.Presently, eligibility requires completion of Initial Active Duty forTraining (IADT) and 180 days in the Selected Reserve. Most Guard andReserve soldiers complete 180 !...ys prior to completion of IADT,therefore, the 180 day requirement is redundant. If the requirementis removed, new Guard members will be eligible for immediate benefitsupon completion of IADT and entitled prior service enlistees will alsoreceive immediate benefits. Removal would also lessen the errorpotential and make the program easier to administer.

0

250